Auto warranties | Proposed class settlement
FCA’s Proposed Warranty Deal Would Cover 3.6L Valve Repairs
After a customer alleged FCA failed to provide emissions-warranty coverage for three valve-train components, the automaker agreed to a revised settlement offering repairs and reimbursement. The deal is not yet approved.
What the agreement says
- The plaintiff alleged FCA failed to classify certain valve rocker arms, valve stem oil seals and valve tappets as high-priced parts covered by the California Emissions Warranty.
- FCA denies liability and wrongdoing. The settlement is a negotiated proposal, not a finding that the allegation is true.
- The proposed warranty would cover qualifying parts and labor until the earlier of seven years from the vehicle’s in-service date or 70,000 miles.
- Owners who already paid for qualifying diagnosis or repair could seek full reimbursement with supporting records.
- The agreement covers specified 3.6L vehicles associated with California and ten other listed states.
- The claim, objection and opt-out periods would each close 45 days after settlement notice.
No calendar deadline exists in the supplied agreement because the court must first grant preliminary approval and authorize notice.
A repair that allegedly went uncovered could move onto FCA’s bill
Under FCA’s latest proposal, an owner with a qualifying failed valve component would not have to pay an authorized dealership and then chase repayment. Diagnosis and repair would be covered directly, without a settlement document or an added warranty-service fee.
That proposed change addresses the central allegation filed by Kristal Regueiro in 2022. She alleged FCA failed to identify certain valve-train components as high-priced warranted parts under California emissions regulations and therefore failed to cover associated diagnosis or repairs.
The supplied agreement does not decide whether that allegation is correct. FCA expressly denies liability and wrongdoing. Both sides describe the deal as a way to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of continued litigation.
The lawsuit concerns failed valve rocker arms, valve stem oil seals and valve tappets in specified vehicles equipped with a 3.6L engine.
The obligation would become effective only if the court approves the settlement and the agreement survives any permitted review.
It therefore cannot show how many vehicles experienced a covered failure or what the aggregate consumer benefit may be.
Seven years or 70,000 miles, whichever arrives first
The settlement would extend applicable warranty obligations for parts and labor needed to replace a failed covered component. The clock starts on the vehicle’s in-service date, generally when it was delivered to the original purchaser or lessee. A demonstrator or company car starts its clock when it was first placed in service.
The extension would follow the vehicle after a sale rather than remaining personal to the original owner. Existing warranty rights would remain in place, but all terms and conditions of FCA’s Basic Limited Warranty would also apply to the extension.
A listed part fails
The failure must involve a valve rocker arm, valve stem oil seal or valve tappet.
The vehicle is inside both limits
Coverage is available before seven years have passed and before the odometer exceeds 70,000 miles.
An authorized dealer handles service
Qualifying diagnosis and repair would be covered without the owner first paying out of pocket.
The proposal spans 11 states and a long list of FCA vehicles
The agreement identifies vehicles equipped with a 3.6L engine and associated with California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont or Washington.
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Washington
Vehicles identified by the agreement
- 2015-2020 Ram 1500
- 2015-2019 Dodge Journey
- 2015-2020 Jeep Wrangler
- 2015-2020 Dodge Challenger
- 2015-2020 Dodge Charger
- 2015-2020 Chrysler 300
- 2015-2020 Chrysler Town & Country or Dodge Grand Caravan
- 2015-2017 Chrysler 200
- 2015-2020 Ram Promaster
- 2015-2020 Dodge Durango
- 2015-2020 Grand Cherokee
The formal class definition refers to individuals whom FCA’s records confirm purchased a listed vehicle. Other provisions refer to leased vehicles, lessees and lessors. Anyone receiving notice would need to compare their records with the final court-approved definition rather than relying on model and year alone.
Past repair bills require proof, and the clock would be short
Class members who previously paid for a qualifying diagnosis or repair could request full reimbursement. Diagnostic costs could qualify even when no repair was completed, provided the diagnosis identified a condition requiring repair of one of the covered parts and occurred within the proposed warranty period.
- Document the payment. A claim must include a completed form and proof such as a paid invoice, receipt or credit-card statement showing the amount and service date.
- Identify the vehicle and work. Required records include the VIN, owner, diagnosed or repaired component, and the repair facility’s name and contact information.
- Submit within 45 days of notice. The agreement permits claims by mail, email or a settlement website. Those channels do not yet appear in the supplied document.
- Wait for the administrator’s review. Kroll Settlement Administration would have 60 days after receiving a claim to report the approved amount or explain a denial or reduction.
- Cure a deficiency within 20 days. A claimant could supply missing material. Kroll would then have 35 days to issue its final determination.
If a claimant does not challenge a proposed partial payment within the 20-day cure period, the agreement says acceptance would be presumed. Kroll’s final determination could not be disputed by the claimant, FCA or class counsel.
Approved checks would be mailed within 21 days after FCA funds the settlement fund and would remain valid for 90 days. The supplied agreement does not state when that funding must occur, identify a fixed common-fund amount or place an aggregate cap on qualifying reimbursements.
The court rejected preliminary approval of two earlier versions
The procedural history matters because this is not the first attempt to obtain approval. The agreement records two denials, followed by amended complaints and revised terms. It does not state the court’s reasons for either denial, so those reasons cannot be inferred from this document alone.
Regueiro filed the proposed class action against FCA US.
The parties participated in a full-day mediation through JAMS.
The court denied the first motion for preliminary settlement approval.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint adding a breach-of-contract claim for the plaintiff and members in the ten states identified as Regulation 177 states.
The court denied the renewed motion for preliminary approval.
The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, and the parties revised the agreement again.
The Second Renewed Class Action Settlement Agreement was filed with the court.
Coverage comes with a release of related claims
If the court grants final approval, class members who do not opt out would release FCA and a broad group of related entities from claims tied to malfunction of the three covered components as pleaded in the lawsuit. The settlement would become their exclusive remedy for those released claims.
What the proposal offers
- Direct warranty service for qualifying future failures.
- Full reimbursement for qualifying past diagnosis or repair.
- Coverage that follows a vehicle after resale.
- No reduction in class benefits to pay approved legal fees.
What participating members release
- California unfair-competition claims described in the agreement.
- Specified breach-of-contract claims for the plaintiff and Regulation 177 state members.
- Other related claims based on malfunction of the covered components.
- The ability to initiate released claims after final approval.
The release does not include claims for death, personal injury, damage to tangible property other than a class vehicle or subrogation. The agreement also states that pending automobile lemon-law claims are not waived.
A class member could instead request exclusion within 45 days after notice. Opting out would surrender settlement benefits and the right to object, but it would prevent the settlement from releasing that person’s claims.
The proposed objection process is more demanding. It requires a detailed filing with the court, including the grounds for the objection, supporting documents and a list of class-settlement objections involving the objector or counsel during the previous five years. The parties also plan to ask the court for authority to take depositions and seek relevant records from objectors. Those provisions remain proposals unless the court approves them.
FCA would cover administration and up to $1.005 million in legal fees
FCA agreed to pay settlement notice and administration expenses. Class counsel may request up to $1,005,000 in fees, costs and expenses, subject to a court award. Those payments would be separate from class benefits and would not reduce warranty service or reimbursement.
FCA also agreed not to oppose a proposed $7,500 service award for Regueiro. That payment likewise requires court approval.
These figures are specific. The total consumer value is not. Without a class count, failure rate, claim estimate or aggregate repair data, the agreement offers no reliable way to compare legal fees with the ultimate value delivered to vehicle owners.
The next meaningful event is approval, not a claim deadline
No one can calculate a claim deadline from the filing date. The 45-day clock starts only after a court-approved notice is disseminated. If preliminary approval is granted, the administrator would send notice to reasonably identifiable class members and publish the operative forms and instructions.
Questions the next court filings should answer
- Whether the court grants preliminary approval to this revised agreement.
- What final class definition and notice language the court authorizes.
- When notice is completed and the 45-day deadline begins.
- How many claims are submitted, approved, reduced or denied.
- What fees and service award the court ultimately permits.
The proposal offers a concrete response to an alleged warranty gap, but its reach remains unquantified. Until approval and notice occur, the central promise is still conditional: qualifying owners may receive repairs or reimbursement, but no benefit is available merely because the agreement was filed.
Explore by category
Antitrust
Monopolies and anti-competition tactics used to crush rivals.
View Cases →Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Environmental Violations
Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
View Cases →Labor Exploitation
Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
View Cases →Data Breaches & Privacy
Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →Intellectual Property
IP theft that punishes originality and rewards copying.
View Cases →Misleading Marketing
False claims that waste money and bury critical safety info.
View Cases →
