10. VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF PARTIES. A. The Plaintiffs.

Transcription

1

2 1 1 A. The Plaintiffs. PARTIES. VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF. 1. Plaintiffs Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair are the parents of Benjamin Hair, who died, tragically, at the age of. Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair were appointed as co-administrators of the Estate of Benjamin Hair on December, 0. A copy of the Certificate and Letter of Qualification is attached as Exhibit 1. Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair are residents of Charlottesville, Virginia, and they submit to the jurisdiction of this Court.. On December 1, 0, -year-old Benjamin Hair was killed while driving a 0 Pontiac G (VIN 1GALF1) that was manufactured by General Motors. Plaintiffs Gordon and Brenda Hair purchased the vehicle new for their son, Benjamin Hair, from a Pontiac new car dealership, and had the car registered to Brenda Hair. Prior to the purchase, the Hairs saw and relied upon advertising campaigns from General Motors for the Pontiac G, including advertising brochures prepared by General Motors and disseminated by its dealer network, discussing the vehicle s safety features. The Hairs primary motivation for purchasing the vehicle was obtaining a safely designed and manufactured vehicle for their son.. Unbeknownst to the Hairs, the 0 Pontiac G vehicles contained a life-threatening safety defect in the ignition switch that had been known by General Motors for years, but intentionally concealed from the Hairs and the public at large

3 1 1 until February. On December 1, 0, this concealed safety defect caused Benjamin Hair s vehicle to malfunction, and slam into a tree at approximately 0 mph, instantly killing him.. The Hairs did not learn of the ignition switch defect on the Pontiac G until March, when General Motors notified them that the vehicle was being recalled for the defect. Because GM engaged in a decade-long conspiracy to fraudulently conceal this life-threatening defect from its consumers, including the Hairs, they could not have discovered the defect any earlier than March through the use of reasonable diligence. Had the Hairs known about the defect, they would not have purchased this vehicle, would not have paid a premium price, and would not have retained the vehicle. B. The Defendants.. The Pontiac G that killed Benjamin Hair was manufactured by General Motors Corporation, and was sold to the Hairs in May 0 by Colonial Auto Center in Charlottesville, Virginia, a franchised Pontiac dealer. The vehicle came with an express bumper-to-bumper warranty that was valid for three years or,000 miles, whichever came first. At the time of the fatal accident, the vehicle had approximately 0,000 miles on it, and had been in use for only two and onehalf years, invoking the full benefits of the manufacturer s express warranty.. On June 1, 0, General Motors Corporation filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No Defendant General Motors LLC was formed as a Delaware limited liability company for the purpose of serving as the successor-in-interest for General Motors Corporation following the bankruptcy.

4 1 1. As part of the bankruptcy reorganization process, the newly-created company, Defendant General Motors LLC, acquired substantially all of the assets of old GM, and assumed old GM s business operations. The new company also assumed certain liabilities of old GM under Bankruptcy Code, including liability for all death and personal injury caused by their vehicles and the components thereof. This assumption also included the express warranty for the Hairs 0 Pontiac G.. On June, 0, the new GM entered into an agreement titled, Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement by and Among General Motors Corporation, Saturn LLC, Saturn Distribution Corporation and Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc., as Sellers and NGMCO, Inc., a Purchaser, wherein new GM expressly assumed certain liabilities of old GM, as follows: Section. Assumed and Retained Liabilities * * * (vii) (A) all liabilities arising under express written warranties of Sellers [old GM] that are specifically identified as warranties and delivered in connection with the sale of new, certified used or pre-owned vehicles or new or remanufactured motor vehicle parts and equipment (including service parts, accessories, engines and transmissions) manufactured or sold by Sellers [old GM] or Purchaser [new GM] prior to or after the Closing and (B) all obligations under Lemon Laws; * * * (ix) all Liabilities to third parties for death, personal injury, or other injury to Persons

5 1 1 (Emphasis added). or damage to property caused by motor vehicles designed for operation on public roadways or by the component parts of such motor vehicles and, in each case, manufactured, sold or delivered by Sellers [old GM] (collectively, Product Liabilities ), which arise directly out of accidents, incidents or other distinct and discreet occurrences that happen on or after the Closing Date and arise from such motor vehicles operation or performance (for avoidance of doubt, Purchaser shall not assume, or become liable to pay, perform or discharge, any Liability arising or contended to arise by reason of exposure to materials utilized in the assembly or fabrication of motor vehicles manufactured by Sellers and delivered prior to the Closing Date, including asbestos, silicates or fluids, regardless of when such alleged exposure occurs);. The new GM also agreed to comply with all laws relating to the timely reporting of safety defects for its vehicles, including the Hairs 0 Pontiac G. On July, 0, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered the following Order: (I) Authorizing Sale of Assets Pursuant to Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement with NGMCO, Inc., a U.S. Treasury-Sponsored Purchaser; (II) Authorizing Assumption and Assignment of Certain Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in Connection with the Sale; and (III) Granting Related Relief, [Docket No. ]. This Order stated: From and after the Closing, the Purchaser [new GM] shall comply with the certification, reporting, and all recall

6 1 1 requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and recodified, including by the Transportation Recall Enhancement Accountability and Documentation Act, the Clean Air Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and similar Laws, in each case, to the extent applicable in respect of motor vehicles, vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, and vehicle parts manufactured or distributed by the Sellers [old GM] prior to the closing.. Because the newly-created company, Defendant General Motors LLC: i) assumed all liabilities to third parties for death, personal injury, or other injury to persons or damage to property caused by GM vehicles or by the component parts thereof, ii) assumed the express warranty for the Hairs 0 Pontiac G, iii) was ordered to comply with all of the reporting and recall requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as they relate to the Hairs 0 Pontiac G, iv) acquired substantially all of old GM s assets through the Bankruptcy Sale, v) ran the new GM as a continuing enterprise of the old GM, and vi) was fully aware of, and took steps to conceal, a known safety defect in the Hairs 0 Pontiac G, it is liable to the Hairs for the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint.. GM is authorized to do business in the State of California, and is identified as entity number 01. GM s principal place of business is Detroit, Michigan. 1. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names of Does 1 through and therefore sue them by such fictitious names, and will ask for leave of Court to insert their true names when such have been ascertained.

7 Each of the Defendants herein was the agent of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and with the permission of his/her/its co-defendants. Whenever reference is made to any act by Defendant or its subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related entities, such allegation shall be deemed to mean that the principals, officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives of Defendant committed, knew of, performed, authorized, ratified and/or directed that act or transaction for Defendant while engaged in the scope of their duties. JURISDICTION AND VENUE A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction.. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter presented by this Complaint because this is a dispute among parties of different states, making the matter completely diverse as defined by U.S.C. 1, and the amount in controversy exceeds $,000. B. Personal Jurisdiction.. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair, because the Plaintiffs consent to such jurisdiction.. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant General Motors LLC, because it engages in significant business throughout the State of California, thus providing the State of California with general jurisdiction.

8 1 1 C. Venue.. Venue in this District is proper under U.S.C. 11(b) because Defendant General Motors LLC, as a limited liability company, is deemed to reside in any district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff consents to the venue of the Court. Moreover, because Defendant General Motors LLC has failed to identify a California principal place of business in their Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State as required by California Corporations Code 0, venue is proper in this county and judicial district. In addition, following the ignition switch cover-up by Defendant General Motors LLC, class action lawsuits have been filed against the Defendant throughout the United States. Of these, related cases are filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, as follows: (i) Martin Ponce v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-0; (ii) Kimi L. Hurst v. General Motors Company, United States District Court No.: :-cv-0; (iii) Sylvia Benton v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-000; (iv) Esperanza Ramirez, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., United States District Court No.: :-cv-0; (v) Taylor Deushane v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (vi) Devora Kelley v. General Motors Company, United States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (vii) Daniel Ratzlaff, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (viii) Teleso Satele, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (ix) Katie Michelle McConnell v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (x) Nicole Heuler v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (xi) Tammie Balls, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-0; (xii) Sara Robinson, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-0; (xiii) Larry Darby v. General Motors LLC, et al., United

9 1 1 States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (xiv) Camlan Inc., et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-00; (xv) Javier F. Malaga, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv- 00; (xvi) Kimberly Brown, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: :-cv-0; (xvii) Ken Saclo, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., United States District Court No.: :-cv-000; (xviii) Ronald Cox v. General Motors LLC, et al., United States District Court No.: :-cv-00. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. The Deadly Safety Defect and GM s Concealment.. GM manufactures consumer vehicles that are sold throughout the United States, and in numerous countries around the world. In its quest to capture market share, GM claims to be a leader of manufacturing safe vehicles, making statements like, General Motors uses extensive testing to ensure the quality and safety of our vehicles, and quality and safety are at the top of the agenda at GM. In truth, however, GM is far more concerned about financial gain than the wellbeing of its customers; the statements about commitment to safety are merely a ruse to sell more cars to the consuming public.. In the early 00s, GM sought to develop a new entrant into the subcompact car market that would compete against foreign manufacturers who had long dominated the market. To compete against these manufacturers, GM understood that it had to build the car as inexpensively as possible, in order to yield an economical MSRP sticker price. The result of these efforts was the development of the Delta platform, a compact front-wheel drive and crossover SUV platform. The Delta platform was used to build the Saturn Ion GM s first entrant into this

10 1 1 market. The Saturn Ion was introduced as a 0 model, and was first displayed at the 0 New York International Auto Show.. In 01, during the pre-development of the Saturn Ion, GM engineers discovered that there was a defect in the design and manufacture of the Ion s ignition switch system. In testing, the engineers found that the ignition switch would, for no apparent reason, turn from the On position, to the Accessory or Off position while driving. This event would cause the engine to suddenly turn off, and would also disable the vehicle s power steering, power brakes and airbags. GM engineers determined that the problem was the length of the detent spring and plunger that was built into the ignition switch.. In September and October 01, GM designed a fix to the defect by lengthening the detent spring and plunger. As GM would later state, The longer plunger and spring increase the effort when turning the key, thus eliminating the switch from unexpectedly turning to the Accessory or Off positions. However, after designing the fix, GM rejected the redesign because of cost, allowing the Saturn Ion to be built with the defective part and knowingly putting a vehicle into the stream of commerce that would shut off during normal use.. In February 0, GM directed Delphi, the ignition switch manufacturer, to build the defective part even though the ignition switch torque was below the original specifications set by GM. As Joan Claybrook, the former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ), stated: General Motors picked a smaller and cheaper ignition switch that cost consumers their lives and saved General Motors money.

11 1 1. In 0, after the launch of the Saturn Ion, GM began receiving complaints from consumers about their Ions suddenly shutting off, yet did nothing to correct the problem.. Following the introduction of the Ion, GM began developing other low-cost vehicles on the Delta platform. This included the Chevrolet Cobalt, which debuted in 0, and the Pontiac G, which was introduced in 0. Both the Cobalt and the G were built in the same GM assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio, and other than differences in the grille, headlights, taillights and badging, the two vehicles are virtually identical. The G was essentially the same vehicle as the Cobalt, but with Pontiac badging.. When GM developed the Cobalt and the G, it used the same ignition switch that was in the Saturn Ion, despite knowing that the switch was defective and had been the subject of numerous consumer complaints. As internal GM documents state, The Chevrolet Cobalt began production with the Saturn Ion ignition switch. All model years Cobalt, Pursuit, G, Ion and HHR have the same mechanical properties for the ignition switch.. While the Cobalt was in development in 0, GM engineers again witnessed problems with the vehicle unexpectedly shutting off the same type of problem they experienced when developing the Ion in 01: the vehicles suddenly shut off, as the ignition switch moved from the On to the Accessory or Off position. As one engineer commented in a 0 , I was very aware of an issue with inadvertent ignitions offs due to the low mounted ignition switch in the steering column and the low efforts required to rotate the ignition. Nevertheless, as with the Saturn Ion, GM allowed the vehicles to be built with the defective part, and placed in the hands of unsuspecting consumers, endangering their lives.

12 1 1. On November, 0, after the Cobalt was already being sold in dealerships throughout the country, GM opened an engineering inquiry, called a Problem Resolution Tracking System (PRTS No. N0), to further examine the ignition switch defect. In February 0, GM engineers met to consider solutions to the ignition switch problem, but a Cobalt engineering manager issued a directive to the team to close the inquiry with no action. (Emphasis added). The reasons cited for the decision were lead time of all solutions is too long, tooling cost and piece price are too high, and none of the solutions represents an acceptable business case. (Emphasis added).. Following the decision to not fix the defective switch, GM began receiving complaints from customers about their Cobalts suddenly shutting off. As one internal stated, [t]here are many reports of that condition for On May, 0, the company opened another Problem Resolution Tracking System (PRTS No. N) because of [c]ustomer concern that the vehicle ignition will turn off while driving. This inquiry noted that the issue had already been addressed in the November 0 PRTS, and that a directive had been given to not fix the problem. However, management requested that the issue be reopened because of the level of buyback activity [of vehicles] that is developing in the field. 0. Four months after the May 0 engineering inquiry was opened, GM engineers Craig St. Pierre and David Trush designed yet another fix for the defective ignition switch. However, after initial approval, the redesign was canceled. In internal s, GM management explained, The redesigned switch was presented to the program team, but rejected due to cost and long timing. 1

13 1 1 (Emphasis added). As GM would later state, After consideration of the lead time required, cost, and effectiveness of each of these solutions, the [investigation] was closed with no action. 1. In April, the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee investigated the matter, and found that GM had made a conscious decision to scrap the redesign even though it would have eliminated a serious defect and saved countless lives because it would have increased the cost per unit by $0.. The House Subcommittee found: As soon the Chevy Cobalt rolled off the production line in 0, customers began filing complaints about the ignition switch. These customers told General Motors that just by bumping the key with their knee while driving the Cobalt, it would shut off. In 0 and 0, GM engineers twice considered the problem and even developed potential solutions to fix it, but decided the tooling cost and piece prices are too high and that none of the solutions represent an acceptable business case. * * * Documents provided by GM show that this unacceptable cost increase was only cents.. In September 0 the same month that the company scrapped the redesign because of the $0. price increase GM opened its first legal file on a fatality caused by the ignition switch failure. This still did not compel GM to approve the part redesign. Instead, in December 0 GM issued a one-page Service Bulletin to its dealers (Bulletin No ) instructing them to install a snap-on key cover for customers who complained of the problem. 1

14 1 1 Inexplicably, the Service Bulletin only related to some of the vehicles that contained the defective switch. It would take GM nearly another year until October 0 to amend the Service Bulletin to include these additional models. That month, GM issued Bulletin No A to its dealers, informing them that the following vehicles were prone to unexpectedly shutting off: 0-0 Chevrolet Cobalt 0-0 Chevrolet HHR 0 Pontiac G [the vehicle that killed Benjamin Hair] 0-0 Pontiac Solstice 0-0 Saturn Ion 0 Saturn Sky. This Bulletin gave the same recommendation: provide a snap-on key cover for customers who complained of the problem. However, GM did nothing to inform the consuming public about the problem, nor did it tell its dealers to install the snap-on key cover on the new cars they sold.. By 0, GM had knowingly and maliciously placed over one million vehicles on U.S. highways that were manufactured with what GM knew to be a defective ignition switch. While the defect was well known to GM engineers and upper management, the company continued to conceal it from the buying public. Hence, consumers such as the Hairs never knew, nor could have known, of the deadly defect.. As consumers began to die or suffer serious injury, GM systematically tracked the events, creating secret database files for ignition switch accidents. In

15 1 1 these files, GM would made notes to specific customers files, with callous notations such as: Fatality Traumatic brain injury Quadriplegic Lost teeth, several stitches in mouth, broken ankle, broken wrist. Also, as part of its ongoing investigation, GM retrieved and studied Event Data Recorder information from certain crashes. All of GM cars that contained the defective ignition switch were equipped with Event Data Recorders a black box of sorts that were embedded in the floor of vehicles. The Event Data Recorder contains an enormous amount of downloadable information about the vehicle that can help reconstruct the cause of a crash. For instance, the Event Data Recorders capture (at the point of impact) the vehicle s speed, throttle position, braking degree, gear position, outside temperature, seatbelt position, and among many other things, ignition position. Internal GM documents show that the Event Data Recorders from vehicles with the faulty ignition switch repeatedly showed that the ignition was in the Accessory position at the point of impact.. Despite the fact that GM had known for years that its vehicles contained this major defect, when consumers began asserting claims against the automaker for accidents caused by the vehicles, GM uniformly told the families that it had no responsibility for the death and injuries caused by its products. Instead of taking responsibility for its actions, GM attempted to intimidate the families into dismissing their claims, in some instances going so far as to threaten the families with malicious prosecution if they did not drop their claims.

16 1 1 B. The Recall.. On March,, pediatric nurse Brooke Melton died on her th birthday, when she lost control of her 0 Chevy Cobalt and was hit on the passenger side by an oncoming vehicle. Incredibly, Melton had just taken her Cobalt into the dealership the day before the accident, after experiencing an unexpected ignition switch shut-off. The following year, Melton s family filed a lawsuit against GM that uncovered years of lies told by the company to deceive the consuming public.. In mid-1, Melton s lawyer took the deposition of GM engineers Gary Altman and Ray DeGorgio, who admitted under oath that GM had known of the ignition switch problem since 0, yet concealed it from regulators and consumers. Under Code of Federal Regulations., auto manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA within business days of a safety defect in its vehicles, or face a fine of up to $ million. Pursuant to these regulations, GM was required to report the defect to NHTSA at least as far back as 0, if not earlier, given that engineers experienced problems with the ignition switch in 01 during early testing on the Saturn Ion. 0. After the GM engineers provided sworn testimony that they had known of the defect since 0, upper management began sending s to its parts supplier, Delphi, to determine exactly what documents Delphi had on the topic. In October 1, Delphi sent GM the engineer drawings of the ignition switch used in Melton s Cobalt, as well as the engineer drawings for the redesigned part that was scrapped by GM in the mid-00s because of cost. Delphi s chief engineers then gave PowerPoint presentations to GM upper management on

17 1 1 December, 1 and January 1, about the magnitude of the problem, how to contain it, and how to minimize the company s exposure. 1. Yet, it wasn t until February, 1 years after GM engineers first discovered the problem that GM finally told NHTSA that it was aware of a major safety defect with its ignition switch. On February 1,, GM issued a U.S. recall of,000 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G vehicles. This recall included the 0 Pontiac G that killed Benjamin Hair.. On February, GM sent a letter to NHTSA, admitting that it had known of the defect since 0, and that it had redesigned the part but cancelled it because of cost. The automaker also admitted it had known that people were killed because of the defective part.. As part of the recall, GM issued a public statement that it was deeply sorry for the massive cover-up, and that it was working to address the issue as quickly as [it] can. GM North America President Alan Batey stated, Ensuring our customers safety is our first order of business.. While GM was publicly stating that it was deeply sorry and that safety was the company s first order of business, these statements were merely part of the company s damage control campaign. Unexplainably, GM did not issue a recall for four of the vehicles affected by the ignition switch defect (Saturn Ion, Saturn Sky, Chevrolet HHR and Pontiac Solstice), even though it had known for years that these vehicles contained the same deadly ignition switch, and were also subject to the 0 Service Bulletin that had been sent to dealers.

18 1 1. It wasn t until public outrage began to boil over, that on February, just one day after GM s February come clean letter to NHTSA GM issued a second recall for the ignition switch, this time including the Ion, Sky, HHR and Solstice, bringing the total recall to 1,, U.S. vehicles. In conjunction with this recall, and just one day after telling NHTSA that it was aware of deaths, GM now stated that it was actually aware of 1 deaths attributable to the ignition switch, which GM later downgraded to 1. However, both of these numbers are knowingly false and artificially low.. GM is attempting to artificially deflate the number of fatalities by only counting deaths that were caused by front impact crashes. Excluded from GM s math are fatalities that are the result of side-impact, roll-over, fire, or any other type of accident caused by an ignition switch failure that did not result in a front impact collision. Case in point: GM does not include Brooke Melton in the death toll because she died in a side impact crash even though her case is the one that uncovered the years of GM s fraud and deceit.. On March,, GM sent another letter to NHTSA, revising its timeline for the third time, and now admitting that it actually knew of the defect in 01 1 years before it reported it to the regulators. GM also admitted for the first time that it redesigned the switch several times, but refused to implement the fix because of an unacceptable cost of $0. per unit. As former NHTSA head, Joan Claybrook, stated: This is an immoral act by General Motors to cover up this defect, not tell people and then the result was inevitable, that people were going to die and be injured and that to me is unconscionable. It s like throwing an airplane passenger out without a parachute.

19 1 1. On March,, GM recalled an additional,000 vehicles for defective ignition switches, bringing the new total of vehicles recalled to. million. This third addition to the list of recalled vehicle includes all model years of the Chevrolet Cobalt and HHR, as well as all model years of the Pontiac G and Solstice, and all model years of the Saturn Ion and Sky.. Frustrated by GM s continuously-changing story, NHTSA issued a Special Order to the manufacturer to answer written interrogatories, under oath, by April,. GM refused to answer many of the questions, however, prompting NHTSA to fine the company $,000 per day for its failure to respond to over a third of the requests. 0. The truth is that GM has a long history of not providing NHTSA with critical safety information on its cars. In July 1, and before GM admitted to the world that it had been concealing the ignition switch defect, NHTSA requested a meeting with GM to address the company s responsibilities to the federal regulators. As NHTSA stated in its correspondence to GM, The general perception is that GM is slow to communicate, slow to act, and, at times, requires additional effort of [NHTSA] that we do not feel is necessary with some of your peers. There is a general perception in [NHTSA] that GM is one of, if not the worst offender of the regional recall policy. (Emphasis added). C. Benjamin Hair s Tragic Death. 1. Benjamin Ben Hair was a standout young citizen, who died tragically at the age of. Ben was the only child of Plaintiffs Gordon Hair (1) and Brenda Hair ().

20 1 1. Ben spent his entire life trying to better himself and his community. He joined the Boy Scouts of America at the age of seven, and remained with the program until he attained the Eagle Scout award at the highest rank of the Boy Scouting program. Ben was also a champion swimmer. He began swimming at the age of months, and after a lifetime of swim-meets became an accredited Life Guard.. Ben s life ambition was to follow his father s career path of a becoming a Doctor of Pharmacy. Gordon Hair had retired as a pharmacist after working for CVS for years. After graduating from Virginia Tech in just three years, obtaining a B.S. in Biology, Ben enrolled in the Bernard J. Dunn School of Pharmacy at Shenandoah University. While in school, Ben worked at CVS as a certified pharmacy technician.. All of this changed on a Sunday afternoon on December 1, 0, when the 0 Pontiac G that Ben s parents purchased for him uncontrollably went off the road and hit a tree at 0 mph, killing him instantly. Ben was driving down a deserted country road in Charlottesville, Virginia that was two miles from his house the same road that he had driven every day for nearly five years when he lost control of his Pontiac G. Ben was wearing his seatbelt, but as with so many of the recalled vehicles, the airbags failed to deploy. Ben died two weeks before his st birthday and just days before Christmas. Photos of Ben are attached as Exhibit.. Initially, the cause of the accident was completely unexplainable. There were no skid marks, there were no other vehicles involved, there were no obvious signs of distress; Ben appeared to have simply lost control of his vehicle on the familiar road, and then made no effort to brake as he hit a tree at 0 mph.

21 1 1 The accident occurred at a slight bend in the road, and the ground was wet from a prior rain, but neither of these factors would have caused the vehicle to simply leave the road, particularly without any skid marks. The posted speed limit was mph. Photos from the accident are attached as Exhibit.. Because accidents like this don t just happen, Ben s family and police investigators searched for a cause, but initially were unable to find one. In March, however, Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair saw a news report that Ben s 0 Pontiac G had been the subject of a power steering recall. The Hairs travelled to the dealership where they had purchased the vehicle to inquire about the recall, but the dealership knew nothing about it. The dealership told the Hairs that you can t believe everything you hear on TV.. In September, however, Brenda Hair received a recall notice in the mail that was dated April, and which indicated that Ben s Pontiac G was in fact being recalled for power steering failure. The recall notice stated, Your vehicle may have a condition in which a sudden loss of power steering assist could occur at any time while driving the vehicle. Unless the driver compensates for this additional effort, it may increase the risk of a crash. This was the first notice that the Hairs had received, other than the news report they saw on television, that Ben s vehicle was subject to a power steering recall. The power steering recall notice is attached as Exhibit.. After receiving the recall notice in September, Brenda Hair immediately contacted Defendant General Motors LLC and requested that it investigate the accident. Brenda Hair also filed a complaint with NHTSA, and was provided with ODI Number 0.

22 1 1. Ben s case was assigned to Sean Kelly at GM. Brenda Hair told Kelly that because the accident occurred in December 0, and she did not receive the recall notice until September, the car had been crushed. However, she immediately sent Kelly all that she had, which was the police investigation report and photos from the accident scene. 0. Unbeknownst to Brenda Hair, however, Ben s vehicle had, in fact, not been crushed. Rather, the insurance company had sold the car to a salvage yard for parts. On January 1,, the Hairs insurance company (who had been corresponding with GM about the accident after Brenda Hair received the recall notice) sent GM written notice that the vehicle was still available for inspection. Thinking that it was looking for a power steering motor that had failed, the insurance company told Kelly that it had just reinspected the vehicle and that there were no steering parts left. 1. In early February, Sean Kelly told Brenda Hair that he would review all of the information he received with the GM engineers and get back to her. As Kelly stated, After I receive the file back from engineering, I ll be in touch with you.. On March,, seven weeks after stating that GM s engineers would be fully investigating the accident, Sean Kelly sent Brenda Hair an that stated in full: As I mentioned in my message today, we have completed our investigation in the Dec. 1, 0 accident. Based on all documents received and reviewed, ESIS, on behalf of General Motors

23 1 1 LLC, will not be in a position to honor your request for damages. If you have any additional evidence that supports your claim of a product defect, please forward it to my attention for further review.. GM then closed its file on Ben s death. Brenda Hair asked to see a copy of GM s findings, but the company stated that the information was privileged. Brenda Hair pleaded with the company to release the information stating, This is a slap in my face! How can this be the way you operate? Please do the right thing and send me the information I need to come to some sort of closure about my son s death.. To this day, GM still refuses to release its findings. This is because GM is aware that Ben s accident was caused by a defective ignition switch installed on his vehicle, which caused his vehicle to unexpectedly turn off while driving disabling his power steering, power brakes and airbags, and causing him to lose control of the vehicle while rounding a curve on a rainy day. D. The Hairs Learn of the Ignition Switch Recall.. In March, Brenda Hair received a new recall notice for Ben s Pontiac G, even though GM was aware that the car had been totaled and was the subject of a fatality investigation. This recall, which is attached as Exhibit, stated: There is a risk, under certain conditions, that the vehicle s ignition switch could move out of the run position, resulting in a partial loss of electrical power and turning off the engine. If the ignition switch is not in the run position, the airbags may not deploy if the

24 1 1 (Emphasis in original). vehicle is involved in a crash, increasing the risk of injury or death. Until the recall repairs have been performed, it is very important that you remove all items from your key ring, leaving only the vehicle key.. GM Chief Executive, Mary Barra, testified in a Congressional hearing in April that when your engine suddenly cuts off when you are driving on the highway, it presents a safety issue that would be frightening.. The recall notice that was sent to Brenda Hair in March is part of the ignition switch defect that was known by GM since 01 and willfully concealed from the public and federal regulators. When Brenda Hair was communicating with GM in and, it knew that the vehicle Ben was driving contained the faulty ignition switch, yet it concealed this material information from her. GM also knew that the circumstances surrounding Ben s accident the sudden loss of control of the vehicle for no reason, the absence of skid marks as the vehicle left the road, the non-deployment of airbags were patterns that it had seen in other vehicles with the defective ignition switch, yet it also concealed this information from her.. Most importantly, however, GM knew that when it was corresponding with Brenda Hair in, the vehicle had yet to be crushed, and that it contained an Event Data Recorder that was embedded in the floor of the car. This Event Data Recorder would have captured critical data at the point of impact including the position of the ignition switch that could have been used by the Hairs to prosecute their case against GM. Yet despite knowing this, GM said nothing to

25 1 1 Brenda Hair that would have alerted her to the fact that such a device existed in the car. GM also made no effort to inspect the vehicle, to preserve the vehicle, or to retrieve the critical information stored on the Event Data Recorder; and it similarly made no effort to warn Brenda Hair that she should make efforts to preserve the vehicle. Instead, GM remained silent for seven weeks while it met with its engineers, and then simply told Brenda Hair that it had no responsibility for the accident. Until May, the Hairs had no idea that Ben s vehicle contained an Event Data Recorder, nor could they have discovered that it contained the device through the use of reasonable diligence.. Incredibly, despite knowing that Ben s Pontiac G has now been crushed and that it was responsible for the loss of the Hairs only child, GM continues to send copies of the April recall notice to Brenda Hair. In an effort to stop the recall notices, Brenda Hair twice traveled to her local GM dealer to have GM stop sending the recall notices. The first time, she met with members of the dealership service department; the second time, she met with three dealership representatives about the issue. When this didn t stop the recall notices from coming, Brenda Hair went to a different GM dealership and filled out a form to stop the notices. However, this too did not work, and the notices still continue to come, serving as a constant reminder of the horrible connection her family will always have with GM. 0. The death of her son has had devastating effects on Brenda Hair. Because the site of the accident is only two miles from the Hairs residence, and Brenda must pass the site to go into town, Brenda Hair has become reclusive, refusing to leave her home. In 1, she gained 0 pounds and only left the house on one occasion. During that same time period, she only got out of bed and dressed

26 1 1 herself on two occasions. All of this culminated in Brenda Hair having a stroke on January,, leaving her paralyzed. 1. Following the death of Ben, Gordon Hair started a foundation in an effort to have his son s name live on and to have his memory inspire others, called the Benjamin Hair Just Swim For Life Foundation ( Since Brenda Hair s fall into depression, and now paralysis, Gordon Hair now spends all of his time caring for his wife. E. The Congressional Hearings.. On April 1,, GM chief executive Mary Barra was summoned to appear before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee and testify about the ignition switch cover up. The Subcommittee reviewed more than 0,000 pages of documents, and made the following discoveries: GM first recognized the defect in the part in 01 when it was developing the 01 Saturn Ion. In 0, the ignition switch supplier, Delphi, informed GM that the switch did not meet GM s minimum specifications, but GM approved it anyway. During the 00s, GM received more than warranty claims from owners about their cars suddenly shutting off the same problem experienced by the GM engineers but did nothing to inform either the public or Federal safety regulators. In a 0 exchange between Delphi employees and a GM engineer, the engineer asked for information about the ignition

27 1 1 switch because the Cobalt is blowing up in their face in regard to turning the car off with the driver s knee. Later in 0, GM redesigned the part, but scrapped the project because the tooling cost and piece price [were] too high, and none of the solutions represent[ed] an acceptable business case. The unacceptable cost increase was $0.. Between 0 and 1, GM learned of hundreds of reports of ignition switch problems through customer complaints, warranty claims, lawsuits, press coverage, field reports and internal investigations, but did not inform NHTSA of the safety problem.. At the Congressional hearing Barra testified that prior to her becoming CEO on January,, she had no personal knowledge of the defect. Congressman Blackburn asked the question, So you mentioned in your testimony that this came to light on your watch, so I am assuming that there was no widespread knowledge in GM about this issue until you became CEO. Am I correct? As Barra responded: (Emphasis added). At the senior level of the company, we learned of this after the recall decision was made on January 1st. I was aware in late December there was analysis going on [with] the Cobalt issue, but I had no more information than that. But I can assure you, as soon as we understood, the senior leadership understood this issue and that a recall decision had been made, we acted without hesitation.. However, recent evidence suggests that Barra falsified her testimony to Congress. On May, senior GM engineer Jim Federico suddenly retired

28 1 1 from GM after years with the company, and at the age of. The official comment by the automaker was that Federico left to take on new engineering and design challenges outside of the auto industry, yet it is clear that the company s top engineer who was hired by Harley Davidson the very next day was forced out. The story behind Federico s departure from GM is enlightening.. In 1, Federico was the engineer charged with leading GM s internal investigation into the Cobalt crisis. Mary Barra testified that she had no knowledge of the Cobalt issue until January, when she became the CEO; however this is questionable, at best. The Plaintiffs have discovered that Jim Federico the head engineer responsible for investigating the ignition switch defect reported directly to Barra beginning in February, when she became head of Global Product Development. It is difficult to imagine that Mary Barra would not be apprised of an investigation into a decade-long cover-up that was being handled by her subordinate. Barra failed to disclose any of this information in her testimony before the Congressional Subcommittee in April.. In response to questioning by the Subcommittee, Barra stated that she was very disturbed by what occurred, and told the Subcommittee that GM was conducting a full investigation into what happened. As Barra stated, When we have answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators, and with our customers. (Emphasis added). In truth, however, GM has no such commitment to transparency. When asked by Congressman Paul Tonko if GM would share the full results of the investigation, Barra stated that after GM reviewed (and scrubbed) the report, it would make the appropriate findings available for review. (Emphasis added).

29 1 1. Barra also testified that the GM that emerged from bankruptcy in July 0 was the new GM a company with a new set of core values that placed consumers ahead of cost. In response to repeated questioning about the cover-up, Barra stated, That is not the way we do business in today s GM. Today, if there is a safety issue, we take action. If we know there is a defect in our vehicles, we do not look at the cost associated with it. We look at the speed in which we can fix the issue. However, Barra offered no explanation as to why the new GM didn t act with that swiftness or act at all in the second half of 0, or,, 1 or 1, when it had direct knowledge that the ignition switch was defective and causing multiple fatalities. Critically, had new GM acted in the manner she testified, Benjamin Hair would still be alive.. Barra also told the Subcommittee that it would not attempt to use its 0 bankruptcy filing to shield itself from liability. As Barra stated: (Emphasis added). We will not shirk from our responsibilities now or in the future. Today s GM will do the right thing. As I see it, GM has civil responsibilities and legal responsibilities.... We will make the best decisions for our customers, recognizing that we have legal obligations and responsibilities as well as moral obligations. We are committed to our customers, and are going to work very hard to do the right thing for our customers.. Yet, two weeks after making these statements, GM filed a -page motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York to have all class action lawsuits that had been filed against the company for their concealment of the ignition defect dismissed as a violation of the Bankruptcy Court s Discharge Order.

30 Barra also had no answer to the question as to why GM was only considering front-impact crashes in its death toll. As Congressman Phil Gingrey stated: (Emphasis added). Brooke Melton s tragic death is not acknowledged as part of this recall because it involved a side impact instead of a front impact. Ms. Barra, if you connect the dots I mean, the ignition gets knocked over to the accessory position. There was a problem using faulty, even by your own standards, equipment. And so maybe what happened was that all of a sudden the car stalls. She is driving perfectly, trying to control without any power steering, without any power brakes, and may very well have and I don t know the details of that accident but may very well have run through a four-way or a red light and was slammed into from the side. Whether it was a head-on collision or a side collection, it was for the same reason, and she is dead. 1. Barra concluded her testimony by stating that GM has rolled out new values with the customer as our compass, relationships matter and individual excellence, pointing to the fact that it appointed a new Vehicle Safety Chief, Jeff Boyer. Yet, Barra failed to inform the Subcommittee that GM had, in effect, always had this position. In, for instance, while GM was fraudulently concealing this entire scandal, Gay Kent served as the Executive Director of Vehicle Safety and Crashworthiness, charged with essentially the same responsibilities as the new Vehicle Safety Chief. As Kent stated in a December, interview, Our 0

31 1 1 safety strategy is about providing continuous protection for our customers before, during and after a crash. COUNT ONE CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL DEATH (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant General Motors LLC). Plaintiffs repeat every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and incorporate such allegations herein by reference.. On December 1, 0, -year-old Benjamin Hair was killed while driving a 0 Pontiac G that was designed, engineered, manufactured, tested, assembled, marketed, advertised, sold and/or distributed by old GM.. Defendant General Motors is the successor-in-interest of old GM, and has expressly assumed certain liabilities of old GM under Bankruptcy Code, including liability for all death and personal injury caused by their vehicles and the components thereof.. At all times relevant hereto old GM, and its successor-in-interest, Defendant General Motors, had a duty to use reasonable care in the engineering, design, manufacture, testing, assembly, marketing, advertising, and sale or distribution of its vehicles, including the 0 Pontiac G driven by Benjamin Hair, such that the vehicles would function safely when used for their intended purpose.. Defendant breached this duty of care during and through the events described above. These breaches include, but are not limited to, the following: 1

32 1 1 a. Manufacturing the 0 Pontiac G purchased by Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by Benjamin Hair with a defective ignition switch; b. Placing the 0 Pontiac G purchased by Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by Benjamin Hair, which was known by Defendant to be defective and unreasonably unsafe, into the stream of commerce; c. Failing to warn about the defects in the 0 Pontiac G purchased by Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven Benjamin Hair; d. Failing to recall and repair the 0 Pontiac G purchased by Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by Benjamin Hair after discovering the defect; and e. Concealing the defect from the Plaintiffs and from the public at large, and lying about the safety of its products.. Defendant General Motors conduct showed such indifference to others, including Plaintiffs, that it constituted an utter disregard of caution amounting to a complete neglect of the safety of another person. Defendant acted with such indifference that its conduct constitutes gross negligence.. On December 1, 0, Benjamin Hair was driving a 0 Pontiac G, manufactured by GM, and containing a defective ignition switch. On that day, Ben s Pontiac G inexplicably went off the road and hit a tree at 0 mph, killing him instantly. Ben was driving down a deserted country road in Charlottesville, Virginia that was two miles from his house the same road that he had driven nearly

33 1 1 every day for five years when he lost control of his Pontiac G. Ben was wearing his seatbelt, but as with so many of the recalled vehicles, the airbags failed to deploy.. Initially, the cause of the accident was completely unexplainable. However, now that GM s concealment has been revealed, the Plaintiffs understand that Ben s accident was caused by a defective ignition switch installed on his vehicle. This caused his vehicle to unexpectedly turn off while driving disabling his power steering, power brakes and airbags, and causing him to lose control of the vehicle while rounding a corner on a rainy day. 0. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions, inactions, and negligent and grossly negligent breach of the standard of care, as alleged herein, Decedent Benjamin Hair suffered and died from fatal injuries on or about December 1, 0, while driving a 0 Pontiac G manufactured by GM and containing a defective ignition switch. 1. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions, inactions, and negligent and grossly negligent breach of the standard of care, Plaintiffs have suffered damages including, but not limited to, medical, funeral and burial expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions, inactions and negligent and grossly negligent breach of the standard of care, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress, including sorrow, mental anguish, loss of solace, loss of decedent Benjamin Hair s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support, in an amount to be proven at trial.