Chrysler won't be liable for product defect claims on vehicles sold before it emerged from bankruptcy. Will the "new" GM win the same protection?
Chrysler's bankruptcy will leave lots of people empty-handed. Among them are accident claimants who seek compensation when a faulty Chrysler vehicle causes injury or death. Under terms approved on June 1 by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez, the "new" Chrysler emerging from bankruptcy won't be liable for product defect claims involving any cars sold before it came into existence.
This issue drew only minor attention during the recent jockeying by various groups over whether the U.S. Supreme Court should intervene in the case. Now that the justices have stayed out of the case, and Chrysler's alliance with Italy's Fiat (FIA.MI) closed on June 10, it appears that anyone with a pending injury claim against Chrysler has no hope of a recovery. What's more, under Gonzalez's order, the newly constituted Chrysler is shielded from suits filed by anyone injured in a future accident involving the 31 million Chrysler vehicles currently on the roads.
A looming question now is whether a postbankruptcy General Motors will win the same liability protections. In filings accompanying the failed effort to persuade the Supreme Court to review the Chrysler case, groups representing consumers and accident claimants noted that it "could provide the roadmap for subsequent bankruptcies in this troubled economy," including GM's. About 74 million GM vehicles are now on U.S. roads, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Potentially Large Number of Claims
Lawyers for the consumer and accident victim groups argued that cutting off all avenues of redress for injury victims violates the bankruptcy law and the U.S. Constitution. And the number of victims is large, they contend, citing federal statistics showing that 5,940 people were killed in crashes involving Chrysler vehicles in 2007. "Many thousands more" were injured, their court filing said. In a Mar. 5 filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, GM said that based on historical experience, it had recorded liabilities of about $1 billion a year in 2007 and 2008 to cover product liability claims. (Similar data are not available for Chrysler, since it was a private company.)
"Most consumers have no idea that their rights and the rights of their family members have been eliminated should something happen as a result of a defect in one of these cars," says Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice & Democracy in New York.
Even those who have already won judgments appear to be out of luck. Jeremy Knowles, an Alexander City (Ala.) attorney, points to the family of Vickie Mohr, who was killed in a collision involving her 2000 Dodge Caravan. In 2005, a Shelby County (Tenn.) jury found the van defective and awarded Mohr's family $52 million, mostly in punitive damages. The idea that Chrysler can walk away from that liability—reduced to $13 million by an appeals court—doesn't sit well with Knowles, whose firm handled the case. "People with personal injuries or life-ending injuries should be at the top of the list, not the bottom" in a bankruptcy proceeding, he says. "There should be more justice than that."
The way personal injury claims are typically dealt with in bankruptcy is surprisingly varied, say attorneys and academics in the field. While all lawsuits against a company are halted when it enters Chapter 11, a judge may let pending accident claims move forward but only allow payment in cases where there is insurance; when there's not, victims must get in line with other creditors. The rights of people who might have claims against a company in the future may not be addressed at all. "It ends up getting sorted out in a kind of muddled way," says David Skeel, who teaches bankruptcy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
No Insurance to Tap
In a few instances, when a huge pileup of injury claims was what drove a company into insolvency, special trusts have been set up to compensate victims. That's what happened in the bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers, as well as contraceptive maker A.H. Robins (WYE) and breast implant manufacturer Dow Corning. Insurers in those cases funded portions of the trusts.
But the Chrysler bankruptcy has been unlike any other, in part because of the federal government's unprecedented role in orchestrating and financing the process. For accident victims, there have been particular problems. One is that there is essentially no insurance to tap. That's because Chrysler self-insured the first $25 million of each accident, according to Barry E. Bressler, a Philadelphia attorney who represents injury claimants. Without outside insurance, plaintiffs are left to pursue an insolvent enterprise.
"What people have to remember is that bankruptcy was really the only option that was offered to us to create a viable company," Chrysler spokesman Mike Palese says. "The alternative would have been liquidation of the company. In liquidation, the outcome would have been far worse for all stakeholders."
From the outset, the Obama Administration has stressed that it wouldn't micromanage the automakers' day-to-day operations, or even many aspects of their bankruptcies. In a statement, the Treasury said the agency wasn't involved in the decision on liability, but called it "consistent with conventional bankruptcy practice," adding that "unfortunately, the outcome would have been far worse had the government not intervened in the restructuring and Chrysler had liquidated."
Chrysler Can Thank Expedited Procedure
The expedited procedure Chrysler used to restructure—known as a 363(f) sale for the section of the bankruptcy code that authorizes it—also meant that accident victims and others had far less opportunity to participate in the process and advocate for their interests than they would in a typical reorganization. Lynn M. Lopucki, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, says courts have allowed the process to be overly favorable to companies trying to shed their obligations. "The 363 sale is too good to be true—too good for management," says Lopucki.
The idea that the automakers can walk away from paying on injury claims has reached Congress, where legislators heed the public-relations fallout from tragic accident stories in their hometown newspapers. "The 363 bankruptcy is god-like in how it works," Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on June 10 at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee. The committee questioned Ron Bloom, an adviser to the U.S. Treasury and one of the most influential members of the Obama Administration's auto industry task force assisting GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy. Bloom testified that the process is designed specifically to remove liabilities from companies, and admitted that personal injury awards would be less to victims going forward because they will have to seek compensation from the "old" Chrysler. That entity will remain in bankruptcy, comprised of hard-to-sell assets such as factories and real estate that could take years to liquidate. "It is clearly a terrible thing for those victims, but we don't have an alternative unless we want to be writing an endless check" for future liabilities, Bloom said.
In its successful effort to persuade the Supreme Court to stay out of the case, Chrysler swatted away arguments that its postbankruptcy operation should not be shielded from product liability damages. The court's decision to do so, Chrysler said in a June 7 filing, did not put accident victims in any worse position than if the company had been liquidated. Those with current injuries would be "unlikely to receive any money because there are secured creditors ahead of them with billions of dollars in unmet claims." As for those seeking to preserve assets for future claims arising from the 30 million-plus Chrysler vehicles still being driven, the automaker said: "The unfortunate but unavoidable fact is that future [injury] claimants…simply have no value to be protected."