Got documents in the mail today for a class action suit filed against Porsche for owners of 2001-2005 Boxster and 2001-2005 911 owners with IMS related engine failures. I had a 2000 Boxster and never had any issues. My 2003 911 did have gear pop-out issues and RMS symptoms before I finally got rid of it.
I now drive a 1983 SC. Much happier.

996 and 986 Porsche owners for years had IMS related engine failures and Porsche would not accept liability. I'm glad these owners may finally be able to hold Porsche accountable.

I wonder if owners with RMS issues will ever get their day in court?

 

no day in court . Read the documents they sent you. It says no party is admitting liability but agreed to settlement. Im pumped at least i'll get 25% of $1600.00 IMS replacement back.

 

I love how big companies agree to a settlement at a fraction of the cost to the owners and still get to claim no wrong doing or negligence!!!

 

I also just got my claim docs. I owned two 996's one 2002 and the other a 2000. I had IMS issues in both, but weird they aren't including MY 2000 in the claim. Just out of curiosity, did you guys get your IMS service done @ dealership or non-factory authorized shop? Wonder if that makes a diff in the claim.

 

Could the cost of an ims retro fit be submitted as a claim ? There was a little damage to the bearing when they removed it, but I never had any engine damage.

 

I plan to send formal objections to the proposed settlement,which I outline below. If you agree withthese objections, I would encourage you to do the same when you received anotice that you are a class member.

The first objection is that purchasers who had the foresightto purchase third-party warranties apparently would not be reimbursed under theproposed settlement. This is patently unfair andcontrary to public policy, which almost always excludes collateral source paymentsentirely. This provision penalizes classmembers who acted prudently in purchasing third-party warranties, rewards thosewho did not, and results in a windfall to PCNA. Such warranties were not purchased for PCNA's benefit and should not betreated as though they were. Thisprovision is outrageous.

The second objection is that the proposed limit of 25% onreimbursement for repairs to ClassVehicles that were purchased used without ACPO is arbitrary, unfair, andwithout any legitimate justification. The financial harm caused by PCNA's conduct does not differ depending onwhether the Class Vehicle was in possession of its original or a subsequentowner at the time of the engine damage, and neither does PCNA's liability basedon the legal theories under which plaintiffs are most likely be prevail in thiscase. Furthermore, this provisionactually rewards PCNA for failing to correct these issues while the vehicleswere in possession of their original owners or under PCNA warranty, and forconcealing the defect and risk of catastrophic engine damage from both new andused purchasers alike.

These are solely my personal views and plans based upon mypersonal situation. They are certainlynot legal advice. If you received anotice and wish to lodge these or any other objections, write to the address listedin the notice under Item 16 on page 7.

 

Ditto, I'd like to know this as well as I did exactally that,

 

I need help understanding the logic of this settlement. It covers cars manufactured from 2001-2005 however, excludes cars that are 10 model years old as of the settlement date. This automatically excludes the cars manufactured from 2001-2002? WTF? This does not make since to me. Am I reading it correctly?

 

I feel you. My 1999 has less mileage than most 2005's and I'm not covered either. It's hard to get suit coverage more than 10 years back.