Class Action Lawsuit | Automotive Law | Business

Background: The Recall Trigger

In June 2025, Nissan issued one of its largest recalls, covering approximately 443,899 vehicles in the U.S. (plus roughly 37,800 in Canada), due to defective engine bearings in its VC‑Turbo engines—found in select models of the Rogue, Altima, Infiniti QX50, and QX55—using 1.5L or 2.0L variable‑compression setups. The faulty components include main, A‑link, C‑link, and L‑link bearings, which could fail and lead to engine damage or even complete engine failure while driving (New York Post, Autoweek, AP News, Recalls and Safety Alerts, The Lemon Law Experts).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had opened an investigation in December 2023 into complaints of engine knock, loss of power, and oil‑pan debris. The probe was closed in July 2025, following Nissan’s recall and an extended warranty offer of 10 years or 120,000 miles, pending prior inspection (Reuters, CarComplaints.com).

The recall resolution involves an inspection of the engine oil pan:

• If no debris is detected: CV‑Turbo repairs vary by engine—1.5L three‑cylinder units get an oil pan gasket replacement, new engine oil, and an engine control module (ECM) reflash; while the 2.0L four‑cylinder models receive an oil change.
• If metal debris is found: Nissan will replace the engine at no charge (New York Post, Autoweek, CarComplaints.com, Yahoo Autos).

Despite Nissan’s estimate that only 1.2% (~5,300 units) of the recalled vehicles will actually experience the defect, owners have reported dramatic and early failures—including at less than 1,000 miles—leading to dangerous scenarios like sudden engine shutdowns (Road & Track, The Lemon Law Experts, Daily Car Tips, Yahoo Autos).

The Class Action Fallout: What’s at Stake

Filed in late July 2025 in Delaware federal court, the class action lawsuit names Nissan North America as the defendant and seeks legal remedies for consumers across impacted models and engine variants:

• Covered models include:
  U.S.: 2019–2022 Infiniti QX50, 2022 Infiniti QX55, 2021–2024 Nissan Rogue, and 2019–2020 Altima (Road & Track, Yahoo Autos, Motor1.com, Car Complaints).
  Expanded coverage in some filings includes 2021–2023 Rogue, and 2019–2023 Altima and QX50 models (Autoguide.com, Motor1.com, Car Complaints).
• Key Allegations:
  • Nissan knew of the engine bearing defects from pre‑production testing, warranty data, customer complaints, and dealership repair records—but failed to disclose the risk before warranty expiration (Road & Track, Yahoo Autos, Car Complaints, Motor1.com).
  • Some plaintiffs experienced complete engine failures very early on—one Rogue allegedly failed at 157 miles (Road & Track, Autoguide.com, Car Complaints).
  • Claimants argue the recall remedies—mainly oil pan cleanup and minor adjustments—are inadequate and do not fully address inherent design flaws (Car Complaints, Autoguide.com, Motor1.com).
  • Nissan allegedly denied legitimate claims, pushing repair costs onto owners, even when vehicles were under warranty (Autoguide.com, Car Complaints).
• Plaintiffs Representing the Class Include:
  • Dennis Becker (FL, 2023 Rogue),
  • Jean Coney (NY, 2019 QX50),
  • Gabrielle Wrigley (IL, 2019 Altima),
  • Vicki Laquidara (NY, 2021 Altima) (Car Complaints).
• Legal Relief Sought:
  • Expansion of the recall to earlier model years and broader remedies,
  • Compensation for engine damage and associated costs,
  • Reimbursement for towing, rental, and lost use claims,
  • Reform of Nissan’s handling of recall and warranty notices (Car Complaints, Autoguide.com, Road & Track).

Legal Significance and Next Steps

This case represents a convergence of emerging automotive technology and consumer protection litigation. The lawsuit arguably challenges the adequacy of Nissan’s recall—and whether the automaker delayed adequate fixes until after warranties lapsed.

Possible implications include:

• Precedents on automaker obligations to disclose tested yet unresolved defects pre‑sale.
• Evaluation of whether recall protocols must offer meaningful, not just cosmetic or reactive, remedies.
• Greater scrutiny on failed advanced tech—here, variable compression—for reliability versus innovation.

As legal proceedings progress in Delaware federal court, the automotive industry will watch for how rigorously regulators and courts hold manufacturers accountable when cutting‑edge engineering intersects with safety hazards.