Nissan Rogue Class Action Cases Filed
Note: The opt out deadline has passed, meaning any current or former owner of the vehicles listed below are subject to the terms of the class action settlement. The information provided below will also explain the ongoing CVT transmission issues Nissan is resolving in the courts; class members can better understand their legal rights within that settlement by clicking here.
Stern Law provides the following as an overview of the Nissan Rogue class action cases that have been filed by other class action law firms. The attorneys at Stern Law, as well as those with whom we work, do not plan to be involved in any class action settlement involving the Nissan Rogue. Instead, our attorneys actively assist current and former owners of vehicles like the Nissan Rogue with pursuing their own individual claims outside of class action cases. For more information on how we can assist you, click here.
Nissan North America first released the Nissan Rogue in 2007. The vehicle has since undergone changes amid several different “generations” of the model, each focused on different design elements and characteristics. For nearly a decade and a half, the Rogue has proven to be an important part of Nissan’s vehicle lineup, representing one of the most prominent crossover/crossover SUV options available in the marketplace. While Rogue sales figures have fluctuated year-to-year, the fact remains hundreds of thousands of these vehicles are sold each year, new or used. In turn, thousands of unsuspecting new owners place these vehicles in their garages and driveways, expecting a dependable and safe mode of transportation.
As the Rogue is one of Nissan’s best-selling and most recognizable vehicles in their entire lineup, it has also faced a consistently high number of complaints regarding performance and repair costs. While a number of model years have been problematic, complaints surrounding the 2013 Nissan Rogue stand out as being significantly high. Most of those issues revolve around reported Nissan Rogue transmission problems, though other issues surrounding the vehicle’s operation exist. The long standing reliance upon the continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) used in these vehicles is clear and obvious, but continued transmission problems are not just a manufacturer headache. The loss of acceleration is a frightening experience to say the least, but whether the transmission issues occurred while driving or simply refusing to engage while in the garage, they represent an unacceptable hardship and a potential safety risk for owners.
In early 2021, one of two Nissan Rogue class action cases we wish to bring to your attention was filed by the law firm of Keller Rohrback. That case, now known as Eliason et al. v Nissan North America, Inc. et al., involves a consolidation of claims brought against the manufacturer for defects in Nissan’s CVT transmission used in 2014-16 Nissan Rogue vehicles, as well as 2015-18 Nissan Pathfinder vehicles. That complaint alleges significant problems in the CVT transmission used in these vehicles – a part which is manufactured by JATCO (Japan Automatic Transmission Company), another company owned almost entirely by Nissan.
You can read the original complaint, originally filed as Stringer et al. v. Nissan North American, Inc. et al regarding 2014-16 Nissan Rogue vehicles, here. The complaint related to the 2015-18 Pathfinder (as well as Infiniti QX60) models is available here.
The second class of the two Nissan Rogue class action cases involves a far larger segment of the vehicle’s lineup. In Landa v. Nissan North America, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer was fully aware of systemic issues affecting the Xtronic CVT transmissions used in the 2014-20 Rogue vehicles and failed to properly warn consumers before their purchase or thereafter solve the problems. Notably, the complaint highlights an issue common to many owners of vehicles with failing transmissions: dealership representatives improperly stating that the vehicle is operating normally or by performing minor repairs to mask the true severity of the CVT transmission’s failure.
A brief overview of the Landa Rogue class action case, as well as an extensive overview of TSBs issued on these vehicles relating to the transmission issues, is provided by Car Complaints here.
With that said, these recently filed Nissan Rogue class action cases are not the first time the manufacturer has faced a legal challenge regarding its CVT transmissions. Nissan has faced significant legal backlash for their vehicles. Nissan lemon law cases have been filed nationwide over the years, with consumer complaints also piling up online. Major class action settlements impacting millions of owners and former owners have been reached. These cases, while involving different Nissan models than the Rogue, still involved one common component: the CVT transmission. Previous Nissan class action settlements impacted owners of:
· 2013-16 Nissan Altima vehicles
· 2013-17 Nissan Sentra vehicles
· 2012-17 Nissan Versa vehicles
· 2014-17 Nissan Versa Note vehicles
· 2013-17 Nissan Juke vehicles
Each of those class settlements involved the same general settlement terms: an extension of the warranty up to 84,000 miles or 84 months from the date of original purchase of the vehicle and limited/select refunds for transmission repairs paid for, out-of-pocket, by consumers. There were in many cases no cash damages paid to the millions involved, meaning too many owners received nothing, likely because they did not satisfy repair evidence requirements of the settlement, because their vehicle exceeded the 84,000/84-month threshold or they were a former owner who could not benefit from the extended warranty. When the settlement of these Nissan class actions fail to not help all of the class members involved, we do not consider that a “win” … or fair.
Years previous, a separate class action settlement occurred that impacted current and former owners of another of Nissan’s most popular vehicles. The 2013-14 Nissan Pathfinder class action settlement involved a similar limited warranty extension as well as new vehicle purchase coupons or incentives. There, three competing class settlements were consolidated to resolve the matter.
The scale and scope of public complaints regarding these vehicles is not limited to those models described above. A simple review of websites, including CarComplaints.com reveals the scope of how many individuals have reported transmission issues affecting their Nissan vehicles. We also do not expect the Nissan Rogue class action cases to be the only cases which arise from the recent flurry of activity against the manufacturer for their problematic CVT transmission. Many owners decide to “opt out” of class action settlements to pursue their own individual claims for the compensation they deserve.
The omission of the Nissan Rogue from all of the other class action cases also seemed to us as the CVT transmission was used throughout the product line, and a matter that would eventually need to be addressed by another class action case. That suspicion was proven accurate by the recent class action filings in 2021 involving select Rogue and Pathfinder vehicles equipped with the CVT transmission. We now suspect the same less than helpful class settlement terms used in the other Nissan class action settlements will reappear in the yet to be approved settlement of the class action cases involving the Rogue and Pathfinder vehicles. If that happens, we suspect thousands of owners will be unwittingly included in a class action settlement that does not meet their needs, which can be devastating for those who need help the most.
This potential for being bound to a Nissan class action settlement’s terms without your knowledge and consent has become a regrettably common theme in automobile litigation, especially surrounding some of the more controversial agreements reached between manufacturers and class action law firms. Once a case receives preliminary approval from the Court, the clock is ticking almost immediately to explore options outside of the settlement. The reason for this is that these settlements often require that class members opt-out, rather than opt-in to the settlement terms. This means that a class settlement does not require everyone to agree to the terms in order to be bound to them. Instead, the class members must only be notified a settlement has been reached through a brief summary of the class settlement details, often consisting of a postcard-styled notice that can be easily overlooked as mail advertising. If those owners affected do not take the steps necessary to remove themselves by opting out, they will automatically become subject to the terms of the class action settlement. A class member is not able to, later on, decide they want to remove themselves because things have not played out the way they expected… or even if they never received or read a notification about the settlement. Once a class settlement opt-out deadline has passed, an individual’s legal rights have been determined.
This last part is especially important for those lacking repair counts or receipts needed to qualify for whatever limited compensation may be made available. By contrast to remaining in the class action settlement, by opting out owners can pursue all the available legal damages, which frequently exceed what if any damages are being made available in the class action settlement. Nowhere is this more true than in California which has some of the most generous protections for consumers in the country. Other states have laws benefitting consumers, but California’s law is considered unique. As a result, those owners who purchased their vehicle in California, or any state, should be especially focused on the details of any Nissan Rogue class action case settlement to emerge from these active lawsuits.
In the event that the Nissan Rogue class action cases do result in a settlement, current and former owners will have a limited window of time to act by opting out. This period of time, known as the “opt out period,” is when current and former owners and lessees of Class Vehicles must complete the critical paperwork required to signal to the court and claims administrators that they do not want to be limited by the terms of the class action settlement. Taking action sooner, rather than later, can be critical in order to ensure that an individual’s rights are not impacted by forgetfulness or, “life getting in the way.” By securing legal representation before an opt out period begins, a current or former owner facing the need to take action due to a settlement in one of these Nissan Rogue class action cases will have significant (and important) support navigating documentation requirements and more. In this way, it is important for current and former owners of Nissan Rogue vehicles to begin exploring their legal rights now so that when a class settlement occurs, they can act accordingly rather than playing catch-up or worse, losing out because they took action too late.
Stern Law represents thousands of individuals who have suffered harm as a result of the defects in their vehicle’s transmission. Whether impacted by delays caused by warranty repairs, massive repair bills, unsafe driving experiences or drastic drops in resale value, current and former owners of these vehicles have been affected. Our concern is that, like in so many other instances, the Nissan Rogue class action cases will fail to take into account the very real harm suffered and instead provide a limited warranty extension and/or select repair bill reimbursement. As we have seen in our work helping owners of vehicles caught up in emission scandal cases (or other transmission cases), oftentimes the harm is not the issue now but, instead, what is yet to come. When owners faced emissions software updates that can affect resale value and performance, Nissan Rogue owners may face a sudden repair “just outside” of the extended warranty and find they have forfeited significant legal rights that were, unfortunately… of no benefit.
If you would like to speak with Stern Law about your legal rights, including the opportunity to opt -out and file an individual claim outside of the Nissan Rogue class action cases that have been filed, take action by contacting us today! Doing so will not only help you remain informed of critical legal developments in those cases, it will also allow you to make an informed decision on your next steps in the event your individual claim is not resolved before a class settlement is reached. Tens of thousands of vehicle owners have relied upon our firm to assist them in the opt out process in order to preserve their legal options outside of class settlements they did not agree with. Whether through a traditional Lemon Law case or in navigating a cash settlement they themselves will choose whether to accept or not, our firm has worked hard to generate significant, important results that impact the lives of our clients. You can expect that same level of support in the face of the Nissan Rogue class action cases.
Our firm’s founder and lead attorney, Ken Stern, has worked his entire career helping those who have been harmed through no fault of their own. Thousands of clients have turned to Stern Law for help because of the financial hardships created when corporations choose profits and cost-reduction practices over what is right and fair. We first made major headlines when transmission problems in Ford vehicles became too large to ignore. Our assistance in helping current and former owners of the Nissan Rogue make a claim due to the CVT transmission is no different. Nissan transmission problems have impacted countless owners and we are here to help. We hope to speak with you soon so that we can make an impact in your life and help you secure the compensation you deserve!
Update: In a filing Tuesday, September 7, 2021, plaintiffs in the legal efforts described above requested the Court approve a class action settlement impacting many current and former Pathfinder and Rogue owners. The Nissan Rogue and Pathfinder class action settlement would impact current and former owners of 2014-18 Nissan Rogue and 2015-18 Nissan Pathfinder vehicles. It would also impact current and former owners of the Infiniti QX60, model years 2015-18. What it offers, however, appears identical to similar Nissan class settlements – extending the warranty from 60,000 to 84,000 miles/84 months (whichever comes first) and conditional reimbursement for previous transmission repairs. We fear tens of thousands will gain nothing from these “benefits” due to having already exceeded the mileage for warranty coverage or reimbursement, or no longer having documentation to prove previous repairs on a vehicle they formerly owned. At the same time, there are no cash damages for issues with resale value and out-of-pocket expenses caused by transmission failure.
Our firm expects the settlement to receive class approval by the Court, meaning time will be limited to explore your legal rights if you own or formerly owned one of these vehicles. For more details about your legal options call (844) 808-7529 or visit NissanIntake.com to provide us your vehicle details and get the process started today!