Falk v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that multiple pages of customer complaints about a speedometer malfunction, several of which reference “hundreds of similar complaints,” were sufficient to state a claim that GM had exclusive knowledge of alleged speedometer defect
• finding that GM replacing broken speedometers with the exact same model “might very well constitute active concealment of a systematic problem.”
• noting that a “fraud by omission claim will not be dismissed purely for failure to 13 precisely state the time and place of the fraudulent conduct”
• finding that plaintiffs sufficiently pled active concealment by alleging that manufacturer did not notify consumers of defect in light of complaints and replaced defective parts with other defective parts in order to conceal defects
• finding that GM had exclusive knowledge because the record makes clear that GM was aware of a problem with speedometers that customers only became aware of when they experienced it first- hand
• holding the plaintiffs did not have to precisely set forth the time and place of the alleged fraudulent omission in their claim that the manufacturer had a duty to disclose a known safety defect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).