IMS Class Action August 3rd Update. New Claim form Claims Posted

[B]Update August 3rd 2013 - New Claim form Posted.

This info above was given to me by a law firm who would be happy to represent any of us who have a claim for IMS damage: Grace N. Corsini Paralegal KNAPP PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed]

Subsribed!

Any idea the timeline of this? Or the likelihood of past and future IMS failures actually being fully covered?

Whoa, that's some serious news. Directing customers to this forum to read up on it. Thanks Bob.

Damn, I'm SOL. Only 2 months left... "However, no Class Member will be entitled to any payment or reimbursement for any IMS related damage occurring to a Class Vehicle more than ten (10) years after the vehicle was placed in-service"

I can't say about post 2005 models, PAG did provide and improved IMS bearing as of 2006. All I know is what I read in the settlement doc posted above and I have posted the contact info of the law firm that provided the info as a way of thanking them.

Quotes source post: 10293230

Yea, why say it includes 2001 - 2005 when most of the 2001, 2002 and some of the 2003's are already over 10 years in service.

Quotes source post: 10293296

I was thinking the same thing myself. Interesting position by PCNA.

Dang. I have 6 weeks left. Perhaps I should opt out.

Is there a prize if you read the whole thing?

Quotes source post: 10293296

If I read this right, Porsche is signing on to paying some or all of the costs of IMS repair incurred by owners up through the current date - but not in the future. I'll be damned.

I should have bought an '01.

What a complete PR snafu. No recall for cars not yet experiencing IMS to get a preventative service? I find it interesting that the LN bearing add shows up each and every month in the Porsche Club of America's own e-newsletter and magazine (Which I assume the company is afffiliated with, since their name is used- after all you need a VIN # to belong).

For me, this is fantastic new. I bought my late 2002 Carrera ACPO in Dec. 2004. After going through 5 rounds of repairs for IMS leaks and breakages (multiple bearing breakages and shaft replacement) under factory new and CPO warranty, the engine let go in Aug. 2009 after the CPO ran out. I had to replace the engine and Porsche offered no assistance. I already verified my VIN is in the range above. Being ACPO according to the information above, I am entitled to 100% of the repair cost. In my case, this is the best possible outcome. As the assessment and replacement of the engine was performed at my dealer, my case is 100% documented. Thanks!

settling the issue and not offering to fix the current cars which have not failed yet.. pretty lame. At least they are taking care of their customer who paid big $ for the car... Better late than sorry but a shame for porsche to not have stepped up to the plate when they should have had.

Bummer! The cut off is 130K miles. My Boxster has over double that miles.

I thought PCNA told us there were no problems with IMS/RMS?

Can some one tell me how to put in claim

Holy cow: So, if you replaced the IMS (with the LN Upgrade) as a preventative measure, BUT suffered no damage (other than expense of the parts labor)....you are not a class member??? If your vin does not appear you are not a class member??? slightly off topic, but the GT3/RS coolant lines "issue" and CL wheels "issue" should wind-up headed down this road, I would think.........

Hang on- just found my vin # (son of a B*&^h).............

The worst is if you find your VIN ... hence you have a reason to worry BUT you have not had the problem yet. So no payment for you, but you can pretty much wait for it... This is almost if not more frustrating. NOTE TO PORSCHE: Step it up and offer a PREVENTIVE measure as well ! Then you'll buy my loyalty again.

Looks like owners north of the border are SOL! Does this ruling only apply to USA registered cars. I have a relative that just paid out over $15k for an engine after months of negotiating with Porsche.

I just went on the court docket for the case - the parties are required to submit the settlement papers to the court for approval tomorrow (class actions require court approval for settlements). We should then know exactly how this will work (eg deadlines and procedures for submitting a claim).

So if your VIn is lot listed in the range, does that mean your car was not affected by the IMS issue.

Quotes source post: 10293296

Because they're listing vehicles that may have already experienced the issue in the past.

I wonder if the VIN numbers listed are the only ones with the inferior smaller single row IMS. I'm thinking more for us '01 owners that wonder whether ours is single or double row since that was around when they transitioned mid-year to the single row. Hmmm.... As others have said, unfortunately this doesn't cover preventative maintenance in the form of upgraded IMS that many have already done. Subscribed either way to see how this plays out in the end and to get owners comments on their experiences with this whole process. I'm sure there will be good and bad ones.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

Wow, I have never been so happy in anticipation of my engine blowing up!

My car is an 01 C4 I had the IMS upgraded and it was double row

The bad news is that with Porsche admitting this, the 996 prices will take another nose dive. The good news is that maybe I can afford a 996 TT because of guilt by association.

So if I'm interpreting this correctly, the IMS issue is real but not for '99-'00 996's and 986's?

Quotes source posts: 10293230, 10293296, 10293413

The way I'm reading it, it says that they won't pay for any damage that occurred to a car more than 10 years after the car was punched, not that they won't pay for any damage to a car that's more than 10 years old. So it matters when the damage occurred, not when the car was put into service. Does anyone else see it this way? Also, why no love for us '99-00 guys? It would be nice to get the money back from my replacement engine.

The term "win" is misleading. This is a settlement. In general, settlements tend to be pretty sh1tty for the members of the class. PCNA made sure to get miles and miles of exclusions. Some people will benefit, many will not. But a "win", a settlement is not.

Quotes source post: 10294712

What I was getting at earlier in my post is I wonder if the Porsche factory only see's a problem with single row IMS cars and not the double row. They have given us VIN ranges to go buy which also is suspect instead of just saying all 2001's for example. As we all know that 2001's had both single and dual row IMS's. For NormD, can you check your VIN to see if it falls within their range or not? This could throw my theory out the window if he has a VIN that falls within the range listed.

Quotes source posts: 10293187, 10294684

Includes Boxsters.

So those of us that don't have the IMS upgrade and meet the 10 year and 130k miles criteria we can sign up and if IMS fails in the future PCNA will cover the costs???? Did i read this legal mumbo jambo correctly?

2005 997 here. Boy I hope my engine blows up.

"7. If my Class Vehicle has not experienced IMS related engine damage, am I included? Yes. Under the terms of the settlement, if your Class Vehicle experiences the condition after mailing of Class Notice you may be eligible to receive payment for repair of the IMS related engine damage, including the cost of replacing or repairing the engine. However, no Class Member will be entitled to any payment or reimbursement for any IMS related damage occurring to a Class Vehicle more than ten (10) years after the vehicle was placed in-service, or after 130,000 total miles on the vehicle, whichever comes first ." My interpretation is if your car has not experienced any failure and your car in-service date is March 2003 or earlier, you will never see a dime regardless. Translation: "If your car is 10yrs or older and the IMS is still holding for now, screw you".

IMPORTANT QUESTION: This case number/name does not show up on any internet search other than here on Rennlist and one mention on a legal site. The case was filed in California in November of 2011. I can’t find any further reference to it, or to any settlement hearing or conference. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cal...v09405/517028/ The closer I read the settlement provided, the more I think this language represents an attorney’s idea of what should happen, rather than a settlement that is happening. All of the specific dates that would be relevant for an actual court date are represented by placeholders. Bottom line: If there was some big settlement reached recently it would show up in more places than a post on Rennlist. Don’t get your hopes up... Any real lawyers out there want to help us better understand what this might mean?

Perhaps I should put my blown engine hopes on hold for now. A 2003 w/ 56K miles may be screwed.

The post indicates it's a settlement agreement (it never went to court). I expect PCNA or the law firm involved will be attempting to contact all owners of these cars with the same information provided above. If I were one of the "screwed" people whose cars are omitted from any help per the date requirement, I would exclude myself from the settlement per the directions posted and contact a lawyer to discuss options. Fact is, Porsche has now given an inch by admitting that these cars are *faulty* and the settlement agreement was made between the specific plaintiffs driving the class action suit and PCNA, and the terms are defined to suit *their* needs. The age/mileage limit is probably around "reasonable expectation" that a car is going to be trouble free when it is new. One could make the argument that a babied car that only has ~50k miles in 10 years should be mechanically "aged" based on mileage and not year of manufacture. I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

stupid question - but - are then numbers sequential? They don't appear to be? My 04 C4S is WP0CA9984S652558 and I am not sure if it appears in the list or not. Never had any problems - and the 25% I would be entitled to isn't much but it would be good to know!

ASHSAI were did you get claim form from can you pm it to me ?

Bob will update us. Check out the first line upate of post #1. BTW, my IMS is still fine but my 10yr time limit will run out in 2 months so this settlement proposal is useless to me.

Bob: I will look forward to your updates. It seems a bit too premature, for me, to contact S. Harris, Esq. etc., However, I will go digging and search for all my paperwork and get things in order......as this appears imminent............

The claim form is the second post but translation from pdf made it ugly. In any case it is too soon to file claims but as suggested above, time to get the evidence in order to support a claim. Regards,

Quotes source post: 10294459

My VIN is listed (2001) and my car has the dual row bearing. However since my IMS bearing did not fail and my car is past the 10 year in service date, I am excluded from this anyway, at least thats how I am reading it. My car now has the L&N dual row bearing.

Quotes source post: 10295839

Thank you for that piece of data so I guess this would then technically apply to both dual and single row IMS equipped cars. Yeah the 10 year rule and eligibility requirements does have me confused too. I wonder if we can get one of the lawyers involved to further clarify on this aspect?

alpine, I provided a legal contact in post 3.

Quotes source post: 10293549

us too, but she loves the 2000 she got!

So my vin does not appear to be on there what does that mean?

It means your IMSB is safe You have the LN bearing anway...

My 2004 VIN is not listed either - makes you wonder what was different regarding the IMSB in the VINs listed or not listed...

Quotes source post: 10295970

This is the reason why I failed the legal bar and only frequent the public bar. Another crazy theory in regard to the breakup in vin ranges, is it possible certain vin weren't included for IMS manufactured from certain origin(s) that never showed any failure? As we know IMS was manufactured in quite a few different regions. Only Porsche has the data for all the various IMS manufacturers they've used. It is unknown to the public whether different manufacturers used slightly different materials, manufacturing process, tolerance levels, etc. and thus produced different long term reliability. Yes this does sound crazy and the vin numbers could just be how Porsche ordered their cars.

What's really needed are the statistics on the failure itself. My 2003 will not be covered soon, if/when this lawsuit is finalized. Too bad for the 2002 and earlier owners. Interesting that it didn't go to court, and that PCNA agreed to it in the first place. Wonder if any other countries around the globe have done anything similar?

Quotes source post: 10296062

My 40th AE vin doesn't appear on that list either! I did swap out my IMSB with the LN so it's moot. But this is interesting. I wonder if any 40th AE cars are on that list. We need another poll to see for the guys that had failed IMSBs which bearing they had (dual row vs single vs. country of origin!) Then again a lot of these motors were probably shipped in "whole" back to Porsche so no one opened the motors to see what bearing they had. I had a single row from Poland!

I was thinking about this last night, trying to wrap my head around all this, Then, I thought, APB.... where are the statisticians and extrapolaters. I am primarily interested in the 996 (this is a 996 forum, no offense to Boxster owners.) I am not a mathematician, (in fact I need to leave my zipper down to count to 10.5.....isn't that why I drive a 996....lol). Is there enough data (with the 'affected vin #'s) to make a best estimate as to the total number of cars affected? [To those who said it (IMS) isn't an issue, "technically" they are right, as PCNA does not admit they anything. I on the other hand will greatly appreciate it if this non-problem actually puts some money in my pocket. I might have to frame the check, if and when I get it. Think about it, a check possibly from PCNA made payable to me. I say possibly, b/c the money, if and when it does appear, may be drawn on the law firm's client trust account, although I am not so sure why they would want to handle the books on this one...let PCNA do it and monitor the payout verses the funds made available.] If the Court approves the settlement, while PCNA does not admit liability, they are consenting to end this lawsuit with the proposed settlement, rather than continue to fight an uphill battle and mounting legal fees. I would have to assume that this is a decision based on data from the bean counters. TBC.

I saw this thread yesterday but had a meeting a couple of hours away from the office. I just pulled my VIN # and although it is 2001 996 the S/N is lower than the first ones listed on row 1. I suspect that when they changed bearing vendors or their bearing vendor made a change the problem cropped up. I have worked for German and Swiss manufacturers for about 40 years. They were the ones who took ISO 9000 and beyond to heart. THey also lead the charge in GMP for medical devices. (Good Manufacturing Practices) In order to be compliant for ISO 9000 your GMP's have to be in place for traceability and failure factors. ISO 9000 basically says I am going to manufacture an engine using these steps: X,Y,Z. It also traces the supplier of bearings, pistons, and such. If a company were to lose their ISO 9000 and beyond status that would be a huge hit/loss and could shut down the plant expcially from the C/E mark perspective. I am not a Six Sigma certified manager but I suspect the legal problems came about because of ISO 9000. The upside of the VIN listed is that if your car is not listed you could make the argument that the factory has GMP's in place that have ID'd the bad bearings and so your non-affected 996/boxster should be worth more now. All of that will come out in the legal proceedings that will take a while to unfold.

Quotes source post: 10296756

This is the interesting thing. Assume each claim is for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K (which, given the numbers tossed around, is really low). How much money is Porsche going in for here? Even at $100M (which is half of the cash on their balance sheet), you'd be looking at 10,000 claims, out of what ~300,000 engines? If this actually goes through, we'll be able to back into the failure rate.

my 40th isnt in the Vin range either, any known 40th IMS failures?

I may be retarded, but i can't make sense out of these ranges. My 40th AE starts with WP0AA29994S6..... It is similar to this "range" WP0AA29991S622763-WP0AA29901S623641" only, but this range makes no sense, is there a typo in the second VIN, where the ninth number should be a "9" and not a "0"? I am a little confused, but under the impression that my 40th is not listed either. Not sure about failure rates on 40th, but i do personally know a guy who replaced his IMS with LN on his 40th AE (at about 40k miles), and then went ahead and took his old apart to the smallest bits and said everything looked brand new.

Yea, my 40th AE is WP0AA29994S621794 and does not appear to be on there. I had Stevinson Porsche replace my IMS with LNE at 34K miles when I bought the car and they told me bearing they took out looke fine However, at time I felt more comfortable putting in the LNE bearing and being able to sleep nights.

Quotes source post: 10297154

It sounds to me like Porsche knows exactly which 996s received the defective IMSs.

This is a California case and applies to cars sold through PCNA? What about Canadian cars sold new (so to speak)? John in Vancouver

I have a 2005 997.1.. my vin is not on the list and it past the problematic time frame according to this .. can that be true? my vin is - WPOAD29927S7844XX mike

Quotes source post: 10297154

it looks to me as the numbers are just inverse where it goes from highest to lowest instead of the other way around. So it looks like you are safe.

Ihave a 05 997 C2 with manufacturing date 11/04, but my VIN doesn't seem to be in any of the intervals either.

Quotes source post: 10297365

ya, that was my original thinking, but then i found some that go the other way as well. Who knows

Quotes source post: 10297302

I don't think we are covered under this, from what i have read so far, but you can at least check to see if your VIN is there as Candian cars are US cars, so should fall under same VIN ranges.

Quotes source posts: 10297302, 10297415, 10297426

I would contact the law firm and then also a law firm in Canada that wants to piggy back onto this and make some relatively easy money since the heavy lifting has already been done.

Quotes source post: 10297271

Ideally it be nice if PCNA can at least make a public announcement to clarify this. Gotta wonder though what kinid of impact this will have on the aftermarket IMS market...

I had some time at lunch and did some math... From the VIN numbers, Icame up with 31392 Boxsters and 35572 911s that are included in the deal. So, overall around 67000 engines that could be covered. Of course, a lot seem to be excluded due to the time constrain(10 years)...Very interesting turn in this IMSB debacle.

My 2004 C4S VIN is not there either (car from US)

If they agree to pay to replace the engine now, why in the hell don't they offer a recall. I think this class action should be forwarded to the NHTSA for a recall ! Blowing the engine at high speed is definitely a safety concern if you ask me.

And more numbers. It seems like there were 82706 911s made from 2002-04. In 2001 they built 20979 units. The settlement starts in May, so would probably include around12000 cars. In 2005 they built 28608 911s. Again, the settlement ended in Feb, so I counted another 2300ish cars. It looks like Porsche built around 100000 911s for the timeframe of the settlement and included in the potential affected cars around 35000 cars. So, I guess if you have a car built in that period, you have about 30%chance to have a bad IMSB!!

Equally confused how to intrepret the VIN sequences listed. Can you one of you confirm if i am reading this correctly. My VIN is WP0AA29941S622*** which seems to be within the range copied below. WP0AA29903S620063-WP0AA29993S624175 To add a twist to this US based class action lawsuit, i purchased my car in the US and imported it into Canada. I am the second owner. A few years later i had to replace the motor with a crate engine from the factory, all the work was performed in Canada. This was documented with PCNA.. How to proceed? Thanks everyone, lets hope we can recoup some money..

Quotes source post: 10297625

Doesn't PCNA cover both US and Canada? so you might be in luck... BTW, this Class Action is LONG OVER-DUE! I simply cannot believe a company like Porsche has rolled out an inferior part in a 100K+ car that may cause catastrophic engine failure, and they would NOT stand behind their product when a customer is just outside that 4yrs window, knowing very well, the failure is due to their flawed design that they themselves realized and fixed in later years! Good for whoever pursued this...

I find really bizzare that the 40th anniversary cars are not included. It does seem that Porsche knows exazctly which bearins are prone to failure.

I guess the "oil slick" left behind after CEF could be considered a safety hazard.

I find the language in the lawsuit to be quite interesting. First of all , 2001-2005 seems all inclusive until you read the fine print, where exclusions begin such as the 10 year limitation from date of manufacture. My '01 in included in the VIN range as being eligible but it's beyond the 10 year exclusion therefore, it's not eligible. The lawsuit language makes several issues mute. In my case I bought a 2001 996 Cab last October with only 20,500 miles on it and not a nick on the body. It's included in the VIN range. I drive with a lot of enthusiasm and didn't want to wait for the big bang to occur so I have the LN bearing installed last month. My car had the double row bearing and it was in great shape so I wouldn't have qualified even if the 10 year limitation was waived. It sounds like the big print gives you something, but in reading the small print it takes it away. I think there will be a lot more on this issue before something really definitive comes out in a legal decision. This is not over.

Wonder if the X51 engine mods in the 40th AE had some improvements in the IMS dept as well.

Quotes source post: 10297625

Nope, the range you listed is for 2003 models, you have a 2001. WP0AA29991S622763-WP0AA29901S623641 is the range you want to look at. I can't tell if you are in this range because you didn't give the digits after 22.

Also strange that some 987's and 997's are included.

Quotes source post: 10298788

I think this makes sense because they have the same IMS bearings as the 996's.

Quotes source post: 10297234

Your car is included. It is this range WP0AA29974S620062-WP0AA29934S623041

My vin is WP0CA29994S653198 I dont think it falls in. Can someone corroborate?

Can someone please dumb this down for me? I have an 03.. Haven't replaced the bearing.. Does this mean if my car vin falls in their range that ill get a free replacement? Or do they just comp u if you've already had the replacement? Thanks!

The way I read it they only comp you if the IMS bearing in your car fails or previously failed. Your car needs to be a 2001-2005, it needs to be on the VIN list and it needs to be in service for less than 10 years. After the 10 years all bets are off. Does anyone read it differently?

Quotes source posts: 10298811, 10297234

I dont see it. Starts at 29974s and goes down to 29934s. His is 29994s. Then again, this is so confusing that i could be interpreting this wrong, again? I think the biggest confusion in interpreting is created by the ninth digit of the VIN number. Its a calculated number and not sure if it means anything. If you start reading the ranges from the the production year digit (eg. 4S6......) you will see that the 40th AE cars are on there.

FYI, I just contacted class counsel (whose office is a block from mine though don't know him), and he said the "official" notice won't go out until probably May, so whatever is floating around now is just a draft.

Quotes source post: 10299317

Just ignore the 9th digit, which is a checksum. For 996s, we only care about the 10th digit, 3=2003, 4=2004, etc. Then the 8th and 12th digits, which are 9 an 6 => 996. Then only the last 5 digits are the serial number of the 996. http://stuttcars.com/technical/vin-decoder/

Quotes source post: 10299317

^What he said, ignore the 9th digit. One needs to understand Porsche's complicated VIN number scheme, which is quite confusing. I've seen this listed as an example for a MY05 997 car: WP0 - Manufactured in Germany by Porsche C - Body Code (Cabriolet) A - Engine Code (Base) 2 - Restraint System (airbag) 99 - first 2 digits of model range 5 - Test Digit (basically meaningless) 5 - Model year S - Assembled in Stuttgart 7 - 3rd digit of model range 55227 - Sequence of production So if you look at the digits in bold... MiamiC70's VIN WP0AA29994S6 21794 does seem to fall in this range: WP0AA29974S6 20062 -WP0AA29934S6 23041

Quotes source post: 10299473

Actual concrete information! Thank you. So... what is your informed opinion as to how done a deal this draft represents?

DK570, thanks for your help!! i have now included my complete VIN WP0AA29941S622718 . If you could kindly let me know if my car is included in the eligability listing? Many thanks

Realistically there's going to have to be a mandatory inspection by a Porsche dealer or someone on Porsche's approved list on the owner's dime the way I see it. It will be up to the owner to decide if they want to risk and bear the hefty inspection cost which might show up as a non direct IMS issue in which the owner will be responsible for, not only the repair/replacement but also the inspection costs. As we know there are other modes of failure but the IMS is one that's been documented and publicisized the most with the most occurances. Porsche wasn't born yesterday and there are no free lunches. Remember, the burden is going to be on the owner to prove that the IMS was at fault. Collateral damage might also play a factor in additional headaches as well. I do wonder whether the take over from the VW group had any role in this decision for some kind of settlement agreement. They could potentially have more to lose from bad PR(viral is the worst kind) now that they got Porsche under their umbrella.

Mine just refuses to blow up and continues to run perfectly. Im stumped as to what the next step should be.

Quotes source post: 10300145

That's because you never drive it and change the oil every month or 200 miles, whichever comes first. You are every car manufacturer's ideal customer.

Quotes source post: 10299879

If I may, you would have to be within: WP0AA2999 1 S62 2763-WP0AA2990 1 S62 3641: Spaces added for clarity. Your VIN tells me you have a 2001, Coup� with a production # of 2718 but you would have to be within Prod #s of 2763 to 3641, so you missed it because your car was produced before that sequence. I believe it is a good thing since it might indicate that your IMS is of better repute than those listed ... but that is a big assumption on my part and I am an eternal optimist. Good luck to your IMS!

10 years means most wont get anything. Too bad.

The proposed settelment was filed with the Court yesterday. Basically, the parties filed a a motion asking the Court to approve the settlement agreement. The filing includes the Settlement Agreement, the notice that will be sent out and the claim form. This last one is important as it will give you guidance as to what you will need to make a claim. The settlement still has to be approved by the Court. After that, the notice will be sent and you will have a certain amount of time to respond - ie by submitting a claim. Right now there is nothing for you to do, but you can start collecting the documents. I have copies of the filings and I'm happy to share (they are public). Rather than respond to hundreds of PMs I can maybe email to a modertor to post somewhere for download by members.

Wow! has any one here heard of discovery? Once the plaintiff, (here the class members) demands production of documents and things, depositions, admissions, interrogatories, etc. Porsche MUST turn over all records which the plaintiff demands which are relevant to the IMSB issue. There is no doubt that if the plaintiff law firm has already rung up a bill of $950,000.00 in legal fees, there are a lot of very interesting documents that have been turned over by Porsche. CA discovery laws are incredibly powerful. That is unless the law firm is just trying to make a quick buck and bail out before the pain of discovery hits. Whoever is in contact with the Plaintiff's law firm should ask about this stuff. I have a '99 with a dual row, so I am not on the list nor a member of the class.

To simplify the suit here is how it works: If you incurred out of pocket expenses for engine damage arising from a failed IMS bearing, you can submit those actual out of pocket expenses for reimbursement. There is a % reduction based on the mileage / age of the car at the time of failure. Now they take away, You become disqualified for reimbursement if the IMSB failure occured 10 years or later from the date of original delivery of the car, or if the IMSB failure occurs after 130,000 miles. In other words, if your bearing when it failed was more than 10 years old, and had 130,000 miles on it, it's not Porsche's problem. Those people who sold their car with the failed bearing (at a huge loss) when the IMSB failed and never paid to repair it appear to be screwed here.

Cefalu: and your take, please, on those who did not suffer an engine failure, just bank account damage when we stepped up to replace the IMS, proactively? I realize this is only an opinion, but I am interested, nonetheless.

Country: If you did not incur monetary damages due to an actual IMSB failure, you are not an included party for purposes of this suit. So, unless your IMSB fails, you get nothing. Consequently a preemptive upgrade is not covered. Those persons who paid to repair their cars due to an IMSB failure, are qualified persons to be reimbursed. Even if they previously sold the car. I would argue that if you had private insurance, and the bearing failed, you might be able to be reimbursed too. This suit is intended to "make whole" those persons whose cars experienced an IMSB failure, and paid to repair it, at the time when their cars were less than 10 years old and had less than 130,000 miles on them. If your bearing failed, and you sold the car in disgust, (without repairing) you get nothing. If you voluntarily upgraded without a IMSB failure you get nothing. Lastly, you must have owned or leased the car, so insurance companies cannot recover the costs they shelled out to replace IMSB failure repairs.

The big question is, how was the list of VINS developed? Why were the 1999 and 2000 MY cars excluded? The law firms representing the parties have the answer to this question. They negotiated this aspect of the settlement. The two law firms have that data, and the class members should be able to review it. Someone who is an included party should ask to see it and tell us what it says, so this whole IMSB mystery can be solved.

Quotes source post: 10293296

I assume the settlement covers '01 vehicles, for example, that were impacted prior to 10 years' service. Otherwise, it ain't much of a win for anything older than '03...

Yup, if an owner or lessor of a 2001 or 2002 MY car paid $ to repair his car (due to IMSB) in, for example, a failure in 2006, then sold the car, he is an included party and can make a claim for reimbursement. Even if he later sold the car and does not currently own it. Jake probably has the most comprehensive list of those persons covered and could notify them.

I'm sure the attys will do a fine job tracking people down - the number of class-action settlements attorneys track me down for that that aren't worth pursuing is amazing... with a big-ticket item, they're probably like a pack of rabid bloodhounds.

The attorneys make their money irrespective of the action taken by the class members to pursue their rights under the settlement agreement. In this case, it looks like Porsche will pay $950,000.00 to the plaintiffs' class action lawyer's to settle this ....in its totality. That is, unless someone opts out and goes it alone as an independent action. Porsche gets off easy on this one, attorneys fees are worth about 60 engines. (with their cores of course!)

So... does this potential settlement by Porsche end any discussion of whether IMS failure is a serious problem?

I am still confused. I just sold my 1999 C4 Cabrio 3 weeks ago. I bought the car in 2005 and had IMS failure in 2006 at 65K miles. I dont have most of the receipts but some paid checks receipts. Can I get a refund? What should I do?

Quotes source post: 10303484

You cannot get a refund as 1999 and 2000 models are not included at all in this settlement.

Quotes source post: 10303521

True. The 1999/2000 MY cars were apparently not considered defective like the 2001-2005 cars.

Quotes source post: 10303462

One thing I can assure you, the discussion will never end. But the right to sue Porsche over it does end. It's called res judicata. Look it up. If you are a class member, contact the law firm that represents the class members, and ask to view the discovery documents. Better yet, the attorney there may even tell you what they know. Maybe, you will find the cause of this whole debacle and we can have some informed discussions about it.

is the guy bob still around? wish he see this message and get some $$ from porsche.

'99 dual-row FTMFW, I guess.

Quotes source post: 10303484

I wonder if since you are not part of this class action, you could still have the right to file and independent case if you so wish. The same could go for 997 owners 2006 - 2008. Now that some precedent is being established you may have a chance at being successful. Any lawyers out there that can confirm this? Would res judicata extend to non class members?

Quotes source posts: 10296258, 10300145

I'm thinking this was a shotgun technique of only kind of admitting that there are 'some' vin's affected. If enough people outside those vins yell, it'll get opened up. Look at most of the CALS or admitted expense recalls like Ford and the cruise control thing, Toyota and the dive by wire recalls etc... it'll expand. S&*^ thing is I have been looking at 02/03's and finally convinced my wife the TT would be a better idea (haha und a few more ponies to boot!) I'm very interested in the outcome of this. You could try to put another 56,000 miles on it real quick, I saw a lot of failures in the 60k mile range.

Sold my '03 a while back and the PPI picked up a weeping IMS (again....repaired twice) so I ended up discounting the sale price by the cost of a repair - $1,500 if I recall correctly. Guess my only option would be to opt-out and go after them myself.....have neither the time or the will for that.

Quotes source post: 10304225

I think you mean wearing RMS NOT IMS. If your IMS was to go the only weeping is going to come from you

The principle of Res Judicata would only apply to the class members who were included in the action. If you opted out, it does not apply to you. If you were not a class member res judicata does not apply to you. Anyone else e.g. 99/00 or 06-08 can file a complaint and pursue their own claim, or a class action. But, if you want a real head start and shortcut, get the documents Porsche submitted during discovery of the instant case.

Cefalu, I would be very happy if the records of discovery were made public - we'd finally get a better idea of what the truth is. I'm afraid that part of the settlement is that they will remain sealed. Certainly PCNA will want it that way.

Quotes source post: 10304172

If Porsche is picking and choosing VINS, there is a reason. And the reason will be found in the discussions between the lawyers when the discovery materials were reviewed. There is very likely an interesting story behind all of this.

Quotes source post: 10304395

If you are a class member, it's YOUR lawsuit. That is why I keep saying that if you are a class member you should assert your right to understand the basis of the claim by reviewing the discovery documents. Only one way to do that. Ask.

Leaky RMS's are not covered. You need to experience an actual IMSB failure, and pay to fix it.

Hello all, I just bought a 2003 C4S with 58K miles, and now looking into buying an 02 Boxster S with 58K miles. I am trying to decipher whether my VIN is included in the list. Can someone please give me a hand and let me know whether my VIN falls in the range? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in Advance! WP0AA29953S622066 WP0CB298X2S660257

Quotes source post: 10304447

Doesn't matter for you. Unless the 2003 has a failure this year. The 2002 is beyond the 10 year limitation.

Quotes source post: 10304455

I got that part, but I am assuming that supposedly if the VIN's are not in the range, I have a less likely chance of IMSB failure?

Quotes source post: 10304455

Not true. Assuming his IMSB had previously failed within 10 years of delivery and he had less than 130,000 miles at the failure, and his VIN was on the list, he's in. People seem to be confused with the 10 year parameter. IMSB failures that occur within 10 years of the time of delivery are covered, it's not based on when the claim is made.

Most here are only concerned with risk of a failure. The reality is the good news is really for those who have already had an IMS related failure and incurred cost. So if anyone wants to know why this is this is for 2001-2005, it is because in 2001 Porsche went from a double row bearing to a single row bearing.

Quotes source post: 10304561

...And in 2005 went to a larger single row bearing, leaving the 01-05's with the original single-rows as the weaker links of the 3 variations. Earlier and later cars have also failed, but apparently with reduced frequency compared to the middle years.

Just to be clear in 2000 and 2001 some cars had the dual row and some had the single row bearing.

Guys, read ALL the posts, there have been guys that fall within the VIN numbers listed that have had dual row IMS as well. Also IMS can also weep. When this happens, dealerships generally replace the IMS flange only. This is merely a band aid IMO but I believe that is the proper protocol as they are not authorized to replace the IMS(unless performing an aftermarket retrofit). When one of the above posters mentioned he had weeping IMS repaired twice, I'm fairly sure they only replaced the IMS flange only.

Quotes source post: 10304406

^^^THIS x 996^^^ Cefalu, you have mentioned this point at least 3 times now. I sincerely hope someone here(who is a class member) takes this advice to heart, requests the discovery documents, and posts the info here so that more light can be shed on this IM$ bearing fiasco. You can lead a horse to water... I guess sometimes the horses would rather continue endlessly debating speculation and hearsay...

Cefalu: thankx for your take, I am still, however, going to dig out my paperwork and when permitted, submit my claim....all they can say is "no" and I lose nothing. If on the other hand PCNA "steps up", well the cost of postage might be well worth it....the fu*&%#g saga continues.

Slightly OT: I don't get it. PCNA is about to (hopefully) settle a class action suit of a long know problem with the IMS bearings. Seems that, if you didn't suffer a catastrophic failure, you might not be entitled to recovery. So while not admitting liabiilty, they are choosing to settle as the costs of litigation are becoming a zero sum gain for them. So, here is my OT point, the GT3 guys know damn well about coolant hose failures and documented "anecdotal" stories about CL failures. So, the best "strategery" is let the vehicle drop coolant all over the road (not track as PCNA will generally not warranty track related failures, remember the track-focus BS is only marketing) and/or suffer a cl problem (again on the road) or replace hubs every 4200 miles.......AND the new 991GT3 comes with CL's, (so there is no admitting (yet) that the CL are garbage). Let me see, risk serious problems/injury and sue PCNA, .....then they will eventually settle because the cost of ongoing litigation would most certainly outweigh the cost of continuing to fight/deny the "issue(s)". In other words, being proactive is good for piece of mind only??? WTF?????? How in the world does this make any sense. I know that the US is a litigious society that many manufacturers don't like lawyers, etc., (because their feet are held to the fire????) yet they make plenty of money selling to the largest (or one of the largest) markets. So, Porsche, GmbH or whatever their new name is, oh wait VW, keep on designing new cars and selling them over here, the more money you make will mean more money available to settle. How does this make any sense? Wouldn't a slice of humble pie, (i.e., recall) do more for the brand and marketing than hoping a few class members actually put in a claim while a large majority(????) will miss out, or by design of the settlement "class" won't be covered. Next, and equally insane (for me) is the group of guys who would still entertain the idea of buying a GT3 (myself included)....but this really does shed a dismal light on PCNA...maybe it will be time to jump P-car ship and look at other options.......I do think this madness might be coming to an end (for me). I love my car love the heritage but I am beginning to feel between shoddy design, inability to step up to correct a known "issue" and outrageous parts prices and dealer gouging, my P-car career may be waning......I might have to wait until the new GT3/RS arrive to to make my final decision......but damn this sucks.........

I think the main benefit of this for owners of older models is if they have previously incurred expenses due to a failure they can submit a claim for reimbursement. If the failure occurs more than 10 years out then you're not covered.

I too am a bit confused by this settlement. First of all, it doesn't appear that my VIN is included ( WP0CA29974S650302 ) although I would appreciate any assistance in confirming this. That said, I am also not sure what it actually means if your VIN is not included, yet your car is pre-2005. Are they saying the problem is limited to a certain production run of bearings, because if so, from everything I have read, Porsche seemed to stick in whatever bearing they had on supply at the time of production. Additionally, for those of us who haven't had the IMS upgrade done yet, if our cars have known defective bearings, it seems silly to wait for an engine failure if Porsche has acknowledged the bearing is likely to fail. By only paying after the bearing has failed, it almost seems that Porsche is waiting us out with a problem they know exists, hoping we get to 10 years or 100k miles first.

They are not going to do a blanket payment to everyone who MAY have an issue, this is the cheapest way of putting the issue to bed - so if you have not had the issue, you are out of luck. even if you are at risk. If you have did not purchase insurance or buy it new, you only get a 25% rebate. They are also not identifying all the cars that may have issues, the are identifying all the cars that have been identified in the lawsuit. How do the lawyers filing the class action make their money? My guess there is a hidden premium in the payment from Porsche, so for them, it also makes sense not to trial it since that costs them more money - this way they post a threat to Porsche, and almost get to trial, and then settle and rake in the money. Good technique from their point of view. Why does the original notice as posted have websites, dates and other info "xxx"ed? Cheers, Mike

If your VIN is not included in this class action suit, you are free to litigate with Porsche at any time, barring statutes of limitations, or whatever other legal limitation may apply. The class action lawyers indicated in the notice posted here they are seeking a $950,000.00 fee for litigating this. They are the real winners. Really, how much time did they spend writing that complaint and developing the settlement agreement? If your VIN is included in this suit, you will forever be barred from bringing suit over your IMSB, unless you choose to opt out. Bottom line here, lawyers win a $950,000.00 fee, Porsche gets legal protection from any further lawsuits or claims, and Porsche owners win? ......I don't recall seeing any posts here saying "wow, thank you lawyers, I am going to be reimbursed for that engine I paid to repair.

The benefit of a class action is that the many people who would otherwise have no recourse may end up with something rather than nothing. Go ahead and opt out and then? You could try small claims court for up to $5,000 if you have the time and energy to figure that out and then you may or may not win. Or you could hire an attorney for thousands of dollars, again with no guarantees and probably no right to attorneys fees if you eventually won. The Class action attorneys spent a lot of time and gambled that they could get a settlement or win at trial so they deserve some premium for their efforts. The Court will review their request for reasonableness, so I, for one, say thank you to them as I might get something back for my cost of repair that I otherwise would not.

Quotes source post: 10307671

and how do you know that? Per my earlier post, they have been able to track when and which vehicles the bad parts went into.

Quotes source post: 10307944

What is the basis of knowledge for your opinion?

Quotes source post: 10307944

Because they have not included the 1999-2000 cars, nor any cars more than 10 years in service. Most of the 2001-2002 cars will be excluded, and some in 2003 depending when the deliver was made. You telling me that the 1999 and 2000 996's do not have this issue?

in any case this is a good precedent for anybody who may have the issue later!

I'm an attorney and I've downloaded all the original documents from PACER, and will be happy to post them here. What's the best way to do this? All key documents are about 5 MB, and all in PDF.

Okay, here's a link to a ZIP of all of the files: http://www.filedropper.com/porschesettlement I've never used this service before, so download at your own risk, etc. etc.

The following paragraph was pulled from the documents posted in the link above which explains the core issue of the lawsuit. Basically, the single row design experienced failures of 4 to 10%, where the dual row design has "far less than 1%" "Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1 % of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)" The suit requires that if you suffered a IMSB failure prior to the date of settlement agreement you will have 90 days to file your claim once the settlement agreement is finalized. The law firm for this matter seem to be pretty experienced in class actions. Interestingly, they have represented many strippers in class action suits against strip clubs in So Cal.

The math looks right, if we take $20,000,000/ 3100 cases == $6451 per case. Not cheap. I think the worse part is that if you bought the car not using the dealer, you get %25. I suspect a lot of the owners have done it this way. What is the reasoning behind that segmentation, given the manufacturing defect is the same no matter what?

Quotes source post: 10310189

Thank you for that interpretation Cefalu. I wonder why some dual row IMS owner VIN's were included? It's interesting to see the numbers as one can possibly derive a ball park of the wholesale cost of these engines. 20,000,000 / 3100 claims = $6,451 for engine including labor on the avg. This is purely a wild guess but interesting nonetheless.

Quotes source post: 10310232

What led you to believe dual row cars are in the included VIN's?

Quotes source post: 10310249

At least a couple members chimed in on this thread stating their VIN was within the included ranges and they had dual row IMS when they electively changed it out to the retrofit. It is entirely possible that these members bought their cars with another used engine installed in it already. It would be nice if these members could post up their engine serial number to see if there any any discrepancies between the engine code and their particular year car.

Quotes source post: 10310262

Well, it's clear the intent of the suit was to target the single row engine cars. Possibly the motors in question that were discovered to be dual row were swapped in after the single row failed.

Quotes source post: 10310229

Yes, most people who now own these cars bought them on the open market, not from the dealer. So any current owners, who in the future have a covered IMSB failure, are only going to get 25% of the actual cost to repair. And if the cost basis of an entire engine is $6,451, that sucks.

Quotes source post: 10310287

Would they be reimbursed 25% of the owner's actual cost to get an engine? You are not going to find a new engine for anywhere close to $6400 these days.

As they say, the devil is in the details. For future IMSB failures, you are required to have the dealer make an inspection to verify the car has in fact experienced a qualified failure. It's anybody's guess what the value of the repair will be of which Porsche decides you get 25% of.

A little more info lifted from the doc's: "Investigation And Discovery Plaintiffs conducted a pre-filing and post-filing investigation, including, but not limited to, retaining an expert consultant regarding IMS failures, review of technical service bulletins, review of publicly available information relating to the nature and extent of the IMS problem, and obtaining and reviewing over 4,000 pages of IMS related documents produced by PCNA. Plaintiffs have also reviewed the status of other lawsuits, including settlement thereof, communicated with class members, and monitored complaints on NHTSA. Plaintiffs also deposed Alan Butler in May of 2012 (regarding warranty and warranty claim data) and Steffan Reinert (concerning the technical aspects of the IMS problems) in July of 2012." Alan Butler Manager, Warranty at Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Greater Atlanta Area Automotive Previous Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Reading Alan Butlers and Steffan Reinerts depositions would be VERY interesting!

Found this interesting in the docs. So even if owner was/is eligible for 100% reimbursement, the cap seems to be $15k if I'm understanding this correctly. The last time I checked, engines from Porsche were closer to $20k. hmmm...

Quotes source post: 10310374

No, that $15,000.00 was to be split 4 ways between the 4 class representatives. It looked to me like it was a reimbursement for attorneys fees of the original class action suit, that was dismissed.

Quotes source post: 10310378

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I don't think I'm even going to bother looking through the rest of it if I misunderstood something like that. Who knows what else will seem cloudy for the non legal person. I wish Google would come up with a Legalese translator or something.

There are 4 class representatives in this suit which represent the protected interests of the entire group of class members. The class representatives claims are supposed to be representative of the included but unnamed class members.

You just never know what you'll find in a search of court documents looking for Porsche related cases!! United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Herbert WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commissioner Richard F. ALLEN, Respondent-Appellee. No. 07-11393. Sept. 17, 2008. A. The Crime and Its Investigation On November 2, 1988, Officer Mark Harrell of the Jackson, Alabama police department observed a white Porsche stopped in the emergency lane on the McCorquodale Bridge, approximately 80 miles north of Mobile. Officer Harrell stopped to provide assistance. The driver, nineteen-year-old Herbert Williams, Jr., told Harrell that he thought the car was running out of gas or was “a lemon,” and asked the officer where a gas station was located. Officer Harrell followed Williams to a nearby station and became suspicious when he noticed a substance that appeared to be blood dripping from the vehicle's rear hatch. The officer also observed that Williams was having difficulty operating the vehicle because of its manual transmission. Upon arriving at the gas station, Officer Harrell looked inside the Porsche and saw the blood-covered body of a white male lying in the back of the vehicle. Officer Harrell placed Williams in the back of his patrol car and returned to the Porsche, where he determined that the victim, later identified as Timothy Hasser, was deceased. Hasser had been shot in the head three times, and weights were tied to his ankles. After additional investigation, it was determined that Hasser was the owner of the Porsche. Officer Harrell read Williams his Miranda rights and placed him under arrest. Subsequently, Williams informed the police that a .38 caliber handgun containing his fingerprints was located under the front seat of the Porsche. This gun was later identified as the murder weapon.

Quotes source posts: 10305625, 10308300, 10308350, 10310189

By using GMP that comply with the ISO 9000 and 9001 standards they can track by s/n which bad bearing lot # went into which car. So you are not wrong in your thought process but it involved a design change and bad bearings. Reading when they went to the single row design and working with GMP's and ISO-9000 standards. They went to the single row design in 2001. So if the 1999-2000 cars all had double row with good bearings then why recall them? Presumably the acceptable failure rate is less than but not greater than 1% when you read the above. When their rate quadrupled and then went up 10 fold in California lets assume that alarm bells were going of left and right in Zuffenhausen. Based on my experience with some manufacturing design making a rolling change is not an easy thing to do. I think the discovery documents would indeed be fascinating, but dry, to read. I suspect that Steffan Reinerts , based on the Germanic name, is the Porsche engineer/manager who has the most knowledge of the problem.

I'm waiting til sellers start using the double row as a selling point for '99-00 996 models and putting a 20% markup on them.

Quotes source post: 10305625

Golftime...your VIN is included (its close to mine so our cars were factory mates). Look at the 10th line down: WP0CA29943S 650062 -WP0CA29913S 653887 You VIN ending in 650302 falls in this range.

Quotes source post: 10310724

Then you have the 99 porous block & cylinder head make-downs :-(

Quotes source post: 10310883

Scratch that...you have a 2004. Sorry!

Quotes source post: 10310896

Yeah I thought about that but it isn't as heavily known as the IMS. A casual buyer might know about the IMS since it was so overblown but not necessarily about the other '99 speciic issues. Plus if it was due to porous block/head the engine most likely would've suffered a failure already at earlier miles.

To alpine my Vin was not listed for a 2001

Quotes source post: 10310976

Thanks for the clarification. Still puzzled by some '02+ members though that said their VIN wasn't in the ranges as well and we all know that '02+ was for sure single IMS. This still leads me to suspect that only single row IMS from certain manufacturers only showed signs of failure or defects. Also gotta wonder how Dave Navarro of LN came to the conclusion from which VIN had single row IMS, whether it was accurate or not. He has since taken down the web page where you can tell by the VIN. I just find it a coincidence that the VIN range he listed for '01 models had me classified as single row and this settlement also states I'm in the range of having of a single row. hmmm....

My VIN: WP0CA29972S652726 seems to fall in the range WP0CA29932S650004-WP0CA29952S655611 - right? I had my engine replaced due to IMS failure - with only $2,000 out of pocket expense....

So the obvious question if the 99 - 00 have a double row which negates the IMS issue with the single row the WTF did Porsche switch to an inferior design? They seem do so much right and over the top overengineer some things on the car and then this just seems silly.

Quotes source post: 10311196

I am confused here - I thought the 99 - 00 stream was the same single row design and subject to the same failures (as well as RMS, etc..)?

Quotes source post: 10311196

Is anyone here, who is also a class member, going to contact the law firm and try to review the 4,000 pages of documents subpoenaed from Porsche and the two Porsche employee depositions, so they can answer this gentleman's question? For once and for all?

Quotes source post: 10311196

Because they went with a more robust and non serviceable single row from 2006+ (until the DFI models came out without IMS) which had less failure rates but also allowed them to work within certain parameters that kept the bean counters happy.

Quotes source post: 10311207

Nope, the 99-00 996's have twice as many ***** as later 996's. I don't think they have bigger ***** per se, just more heuvos!

Quotes source post: 10311207

Mike, All 99 cars have the dual row bearing that is generally considered more robust and with less failures. For cars made in 2000 and 2001, some had the dual row and some had the single row. I personally do not know of any way to tell which one your car has if its a 2000 or 2001 without physically looking at the bearing. My car is a 2001 and has the dual row bearing and is on the VIN list. Starting in 2002 thru early 2005 all cars had the original single row bearing. Its this first single row bearing design that was the most problematic. Other issues like RMS etc. are similar in these years with some minor differences. -Randy

Thanks! Well, I can tell which ones my car has - given its a 1997 Turbo ... sorry could not resist .. but I have friends with 996's/997's so I am trying to make sure I understand so I can give the correct message. Cheers, Mike

Quotes source post: 10311627

Interesting. Do you know if your engine was original to the car? Any chance you can take a pic of the engine serial number(close to the drivers header). Just slide a phone down there.

Alpine, my engine is original to the car. I am out of town right now but I will see if I can get a picture later this week. I gotta tell you guys that I am very skeptical of this theory about the cars on the VIN list being the ones that Porsche knows has the defective or lower quality bearings. Also we all know a portion of the 99 and 2000 cars had IMS failures so whatever bearing was in them should make no difference and should be part of this action. There must be some other reason we don't know about. Perhaps they just consider them too old and decided to cut it off at 2001? Hopefully their reasons will come out later after we get to see the actual wording of the action. Its very interesting in any case and I for one was very surprised to see it happen. Break out the popcorn.

Quotes source post: 10312242

The actual wording has been posted already, and the cause of action was specifically identified as defective single row bearings. The dual row bearings had failures as well, but the single row failures were much higher. At any rate, why is it so hard to believe that half a bearing would have more failures? It seems perfectly plausible to me. If you want more information, you will have to review the discovery documents held by the class action attorneys.

Quotes source post: 10312242

I personally blame the American education system. Reading comprehension is apparently a lost art... The answers to your questions have already been posted. They were quite clearly described in the discovery documents that have been posted here about this case. Now, whether or not you believe these statistics is another matter. I don't mean to be blunt but damn...the document clearly states that the failure rate of the double row bearing is significantly LESS THAN 1%. THAT is why the cutoff was set at model year 2001!!!

I haven't done the math, but I wonder why Porsche just doesn't perform a recall on the remaining Class vehicles. It must only be 10% (or less) of the cost to replace the defective part than to do a total engine rebuild or replacement. And yes, Porsche is counting on some percentage of engines never failing or not failing within the proscribed mileage and time limits, but according to some on this board, it is a matter of when, not if. I'm sure the actuaries at PCNA have already done the math and they are playing the percentages. As a buyer of my car on the open market (and therefore only entitled to 25% if and when the failure occurs), I am wondering whether opting out and keeping my powder dry is a better alternative. Although Porsche will reimburse 25% of THEIR replacement costs (I assume under the settlement that the work must be done by a Porsche dealer), I'm betting that I could get the whole job done at a reputable Porsche shop for 25% less than Porsche's cost. So its unclear whether opting in is advantageous. At a 4-8% or even 10% failure rate (wonder what thats based on and whether the specifically numbered VINs in the settlement document have a higher expected failure rate?), I would have thought that this was at the threshold for a recall. Any evidence of NHTSA weighing in?

NHTSA would only weigh in if there was safety at risk but this is clearly a case where there are more dollars at risk. Now if our cars caught on fire like certain Ferrari models, it might catch their eyes.

Porsche has already reluctantly spent $20,000,000.00 fixing failed IMSB's without the suit. Stepping up to the plate without being forced would be how much more? Think of the devastating effect this cash drain to the Germans this would have on Italian Spanish and Portuguese tourist beaches !

^^^^ so then it could turn into "PIGGS" ?

But a search of lawsuits with Porsche as a party does not turn up all that much. On the M96 there was an intermix suit back east. The Cayenne owners have a bunch lawsuits over plastic coolant pipes failing, and back in the 90's Porsche made an airplane engine for Moody. Porsche ceased support after the program flopped. The lawsuit alleged that Porsche then advised repair shops to make adjustments to the engines which caused them to overheat and fail so they could cease support.

So doing a bit of math... Porsche is out at least $35,950,000 due to the IMS debacle. $20,000,000 - to date warranty repairs $15,000,000 - maximum pay out from class action suit $950,000 - lawyers fees

Most of the suits I read were very aggressively defended by Porsche with primary effort to dismiss on technical legal grounds, without being heard by a jury. A common strategy was to require dismissal on the basis that the repairs occurred outside the express warranty period. The courts seemed to rule in Porsches favor pretty consistently. This current lawsuit was similarly dismissed, but the court granted the Porsche owners class members 20 days to revise and resubmit their suit, which they did.

Just and FYI. My 1999 996 had a IMS failure at about 65k miles.

That means I am in the "1%". Makes me feel special.

Quotes source post: 10314191

Did Porsche provide any financial or other assistance, or where you on your own?

Quotes source post: 10314202

They provided nothing. In fact, I even called Porsche of North America and they basically said, "Tough luck. You're on your own buddy."

Knowing that I am not a part of the lawsuit, I am tempted to file my own suit.

Quotes source post: 10314621

Good luck with that. Do you even have the car still? And did you get the engine replaced and serviced by a Porsche dealer?

Quotes source post: 10314627

Thanks. No, I just sold it 2 weeks ago. No, I go the engine replaced from a Indy.

Quotes source post: 10310724

I'm with you buddy! With an added mark up over your numbers (+20%)for having replaced the dual row with the ceramic model! - say another 10%? LOL

How long till the follow-on class action suit for loss of value due to this situaton... a la Toyota/Lexus? Wow, just caught the 25% reimbursement for used purchasers... PCNA su#$s! I have an extended warranty thru September 2013... at that point, outside warranty with approx 10% chance of failure for 7 remaining months of coverage (over winter storage) with only 25% reimbursement rate from PCNA... what do the lawyers on here recommend? Seems like I may as well remove myself from the suit which will provide little to no benefit to me and wait for follow on class action to join for value degradation related to this issue, or other. I'll just plan to do it myself over that winter downtime I guess... better buy my kit now from L&N before they jack up the price for us DIY'rs coming off the fence... ha!

I have read the suit and discovery. I am the original owner of a 2003 996 which I paid 92k for. I am going to opt out and pursue my own lawsuit. I am a retired litigation attorney with time on my hands, so it will only cost me court filing fees and my time to go after Porsche. I will put them through some legal hoops until I am satisfied with a fair settlement. Wish me luck!

Quotes source post: 10315648

Good luck! If you need someone who had IMS failure on a a 1999 996, let me know!

Quotes source post: 10315648

So did you suffer an engine failure directly attributed to the IMS which you can prove?

Thanks! I may take you up on your offer.

Quotes source post: 10315663

No, I am taking a different approach and strategy, diminished loss based on Ims data in the discovery, and the failure of Porsche to issue a recall on a well known defect. There are numerous case law judgements that will support my case. When I start using up their legal time at $500/hr, they may settle to avoid another class action suit. We will see if this approach might work. It is possible that another law firm may seek another class suit, now that the Genie is out of the bottle.

Interesting... Please keep us posted. One can attribute "diminished loss" based on the headlights instead and the failure of Porsche to not recognize the design flaw and not issue a mandatory recall thus lowering resale value over the 993 model before it.

Quotes source post: 10315701

So true. I had a 1995 993 that I traded-in for the 996, b/c I thought the 996 was much cooler. I think my old 993 is worth more than my 996 today. I am totally disgusted with Porsche, having owned several 911s over the years, and the 996 is right up there with 1976 911S.

Quotes source post: 10315707

How would we keep track of your own law suit? Wondering how is it going to work outside of the US?

My 986S is in the VIN range but hasn't failed; even if it did, I bought it private sale. How do I opt out of this class-action lawsuit so I can take Porsche to small claims court later?

Lol, I think this might be going down the wrong path if it hasn't already a couple pages ago.

Quotes source post: 10315707

996 has better rearview mirror in which you can see the 993.

Ah yes, everytime I read this thread I am comforted in the prudent decision to buy the 996 time-bomb. But seriously, I am very happy with mine and love it. Maybe I got one of the 95% to 99% of the good ones (fingers crossed).

Quotes source post: 10316650

approaching and passing the 996 while it's dead on the side of the road? Sorry that was not called for ... my apologies. Every 911 model seems to have it's issues (valve guides, steering racks, exploding rubber clutches, RMS, IMS, rust) but this one is particularly nasty because there is no warning, difficult to detect, and it's so deep in the engine as to be expensive to even do preventive work. It will take time to see what the 991's issue will be - excessive carbonization due to direct injection? PDK issues? The DFI issue is emerging across many brands of cars, with many picking up excessive carbonization on the intakes and intake valves because of no fuel washing occurring. Sometimes I wonder why I don't just drive something simple, simple, simple like a 356... Cheers, Mike

Quotes source post: 10312692

Dream Carrera, I have been following this closely but missed the one page where it was posted that the single row IMS bearing was targeted. My comprehension is fine I just missed that one page. Also my comment about not being sure if the theory was correct about the bad bearings was not referring to single row vs dual row, but rather a few people that speculated that it could be due to some bearings being inferior due to the country they were made in. In fact now that I see the post about it being about all single row bearing it pretty much confirms that theory was incorrect. I am still unclear why the thousands of year 2000 cars that have the single row bearing were excluded from the lawsuit. Some 2000 cars had the dual row but many had the single just like the 2001 which has both. If a 2000 car had an earlier failure withing the 10 year period what was thier reason for excluding these from the action. Thats the part that still seems unclear.

Quotes source post: 10315689

Yes, please keep us posted. As the owner of a 2005, diminished value, ticking time bomb, I (and others) have a vested interest in your success. I can only hope that Porsche wakes up and realizes that the cost of fixing the problem for those cars still on the road is way less than the loss of good will that is spreading throughout the sports car world. Its making an M3 look better and better . . .

Rob, are you saying the California law firm will represent us Canadians? I would like help since my IMS went under ten years from delivery and I had to pay the whole bill..... IMS went at 45,000 miles and 5 days after Porsche replaced my clutch !!!! @#%&*!!

Quotes source post: 10318010

The following passage was taken directly from the lawsuit discovery pages: "Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001..." Therefore, apparently you know something that this law firm does not. Perhaps you can contact them and clue them in on your info...

Quotes source post: 10318377

This is from the L&N Engineering web site. Notice the single row as well as dual row bearings are in some MY 00 and 01 cars. I tend to trust they know what they are talking about. If they are wrong then I stand corrected. LN Engineering offers three IMS Retrofit solutions, two of which can be done without disassembly of the engine while the engine is still in the car: ■single row IMS Retrofit� kit (fits MY02-05 M96 engines including some MY00-01) ■dual row IMS Retrofit� kit (fits MY97-99 M96 engines including some MY00-01) ■MY06-08 IMS Retrofit� kit (fits MY06-08 M97 engines, requires engine disassembly for installation)

Quotes source post: 10318622

I, OTOH, would be FAR more apt to believe Porsche...after all they are the ones who actually built the cars. If any MY 2000 cars were built with single row bearings the law firm representing the class members certainly would have included certain MY 2000 owners(those with single row bearings) in the class. After all, its wise to cast your net as wide as you possibly can when preparing these class action suits.

Keep in mind that some companies make reference to either European model year(sometimes delayed a year for other countries) or the manufactured date of the car. If a company wants to cover both, they might state both years to play it safe. Remember LN is marketing to a global market, hence the 1997 reference. We know 996 only came in the US as a '99 model only, while parts of Europe got this over a year earlier. Before LN revised their site and when they had VIN references to dual and single row, I'm fairly sure only the '01 model VIN had single rows. This is before they tackled the global market.

Quotes source post: 10318725

+1 I would place my money on the bet that Porsche, under the scrutiny of legal discovery and the pressure of a class action lawsuit would provide VIN numbers as accurately as possible to include all potential claimants. It is in their BEST interest to do so. Res judicata puts liability for this issue behind Porsche forever if the include all single row VINS in the settlelemt agreement. Done. Finito. Adios. Or maybe we can put our tinfoil hats on and concoct other conspiracy theories.

Quotes source post: 10318193

For those of you class members who want to opt out and go it alone, if I were you, I would obtain as much of the discovery info that Porsche has submitted as possible. There are 4,000 pages of documents, and the depositions of Porsche's USA head of warranty, and another technical guy from Porsche who has technical info about the bearing design. You can get a huge head start with the work the class action lawsuit has already covered. I don't know why the class action lawyers would care since their fee is fixed by the court and is unaffected by how many claims are made.

Without the discovery documents this is really a 15 page fantasy thread. With the discovery documents ... it's probably still a 15 page fantasy thread. Given that about %90 of rennlist posters claim to have blown up an IMS bearing, why are the discovery documents still in hiding? Hey, I own a '99 so they aint gonna send them to me (or I would have them by now.) Incidentally, isn't the 20 day filing extension about to expire?

Quotes source post: 10318290

I think the best way is to approach the lawyers representing the class action and ask ..... that would be the most accurate way to get an assessment. Cheers, Mike

Quotes source post: 10320339

What is it with these single row guys? Why won't any of them even try to get their hands on the discovery documents! I'm a dual row car so I am out too.

Quotes source post: 10320661

+1 Dual row here as well but if I owned a car with the single row bearing I would have had a request in for these discovery documents within 5 minutes of learning about the suit. It's always mentioned in the millions of IM$ threads that the only party that really knows the extent of these failures is Porsche, and they aren't talking. Well this suit made them talk. Is anyone listening???

After 16 pages it'd be rather hard trying to find the right information. To get the discovery documents, would this be the right lawyer to contact? Class Counsel Stephen M. Harris, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Quoting this case? Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Case No. CV11-9405 CAS (FEMx) I'm not familiar with legal terms etc., my apologies for the questions. I'll probably be contacting our Commerce Commission asking them to investigate Porsche's 'unethical trading standards' by not doing anything on a widely known problems. Maybe. I'll also be talking to an indie garage that has seen two failures this year and might get in contact with the owners of those vehicles.

Quotes source post: 10321124

Being in NZ can't you just get Sauron or some Orcs to march on Porsche?

That would be one dark lord marching on another - but which one has the true ring?

My VIN is included, but since I have a 2002, I'm past 10 years. Would I be eligible to ask for the discovery documents? I'd be interested to see. Not that I actually have to time to read through 4000 pages...

Quotes source post: 10321215

Haha, very funny .... Well anyone can give me any pointer whether I'm on the right track?

Quotes source post: 10322386

Right train, right track, full steam ahead! Keep the orcs on standby.

Quotes source post: 10321215

This says it all!

Quotes source post: 10313217

I didn't see the question of legal fees addressed in the documents. However, the legal fees in this are likely 20% to 30% of the total settlement amount. It is very likely that the legal firm will receive an approximately equal amount to that received by a class member if they have a claim. Almost certainly there will be something in the documents that you'll need to sign before you receive a cheque that will assign a significant portion of recovery to the attorneys. You think these guys work for free? They didn't do this as a public service.

Quotes source post: 10319037

No one should opt out of this. Some people clearly don't have any idea of the cost or time commitment of pursuing a major lawsuit like this. Not that many lawyers work on pure contingency so you have to front a lot of cash to run a suit like this.

Quotes source post: 10324595

Unless my IMS blows up in the next few months, this lawsuit will be useless to me. Even if it does go, they've only negotiated 25% of the cost of replacement because I bought 3rd party. I can't help but think I'd have better results in small claims court using this lawsuit as precedent.

Thanks for the information and keeping us updated.

Wow... Lots of pages to plow through, both the legal documents and rennlist posts! To me, looks like it falls out like this, assuming the proposed settlement is fully signed off: Winners: These guys get worthwhile checks 1. Class action attorneys. $950,000 from PCNA. (dingdingding! We have the big winner!) 2. Current and previous owners of 01-05 Boxsters and 911's that had: a. Purchased new or ACPO. b. Meet the class definition by serial number (looks like most/all 01-05's) c. Already experienced IMS related engine issues or failure. d. Fixed the issues (as opposed to selling the vehicle with bad engine). e. Repair costs were significant and unreimbursed by PCNA or insurance. f. Have full and complete service documentation and receipts that clearly list the IMSB as a cause of the problem. So-So: Something (25%) is better than nothing? 1. Current and previous 01-05 986/996 owners that: a. Purchased used, non ACPO b. - f. (as above) 2. Current owners of 2003-2004 986/996's that: a. Might experience an IMS related failure in the near future (before 10 years in-service or 130,000 miles) Losers: They get nada, bupkis, nyet (unless they opt-out and/or win a longshot separate settlement): 1. Owners that: a. Had failures, but sold the car as-is at a reduced price. b. Had failures, but have inadequate documentation per the settlement standard. c. Installed preventative IMS bearings or warning devices. d. Might have a failure in the future, but after 10 years in-service. e. Have pre 2001 or post 2004 vehicles and experienced IMS failures

Nice summary PFBZ. Much appreciated.

guys ,thanks for your time and dedication trying to get the truth out of this lawsuit,anyways,i'm confused,i have a 04 c2 with 51k , original engine,no leaks and running strong,now i'm paranoid that my engine will blow,the vin WPOAA29984S620359,is mine on the range?,any help will be appreciated

Nice summary pfbz. The other thing this does provide is more information for owners like myself who have been wondering what type of IMS was installed, assuming Porsche have provided the correct info. I have an 05 Boxster S with a May build date, the only available info suggested my vehicle could have had the upgraded bearing but there was no accurate way to tell, well other than pulling the transmission. The VIN's provided does not include my vehicle. A review indicates that there are no 05's built in Stuggart on the list, i.e. the �.5S�� in the VIN. There are 05 included but only those produced in Uusikaupunki (Finland), the �5U... in the VIN. One could therefore summize that the Stuggart production line was provided with the upgrade bearing before the Finnish facility. Hopefully these VIN's do provide an accurate picture, which of course doesn't totally exclude future issues, but may provide some owners with a less worrying scenario. Oh and yes this is my first Porsche, bought privately, and I have been having a blast in the past year, happy driving to all.

I have been wondering how many engine failures are misdiagnosed as IMS related? With the requirement by PCNA that the owner prove the failure was IMS related, the silver lining could be the IMS failure rate could go down. On the contrary, to take advantage of the settlement it may benefit the Dealer/Servicer to state an IMS failure when the cause of the engine failure was related to something else. This could result in the number of IMS failures to be over reported.

Quotes source post: 10327928

Exactly. Dealers have traditionally just replaced the engine instead of doing a proper tear down and diagnosis to repair the engine or to even know if it was truly IMS related. I'm wondering what percentage has actually been truly IMS related damage since there have been so many that just assumed and chalked it up to IMS. We all know there are other modes of failure as well, including that of the owner to properly maintain or use(abuse) the car.

FWIW, I did find the old blurb again about distinguishing single row from double row cited by Softronic as a source but IIRC, the same range was also part of the LN website at one point. Later it was pointed out that this wasn't entirely accurate and that you should do a visual inspection of the flange to determine the single vs. double. Interesting nonetheless...

Sooooooo this was all total BS? No updates, no additional documentation, just utter nonsense.

Quotes source post: 10340377

None of the directives were accurate. The records and VIN/ engine # references are a joke.

Quotes source post: 10351201

Care to elaborate? Didn't LN website at one point have a list of VIN you could check to see if it was double or single? Also does anyone have the full PET docs to reference what Softronics was talking about?

Quotes source post: 10351606

The LN directive was pulled after people started bitching about its accuracy. The directive was created from the factory releases on the topic. The record keeping was horrible, today if a car is a 2000 or 2005 it has to see a visual inspection to know what bearing is installed.

Quotes source post: 10351626

Thanks as I've stated in my previous post, I think we are in agreement that a visual inspection is needed instead of speculation. I was just trying to see if those number ranges correlated in anyway to the number ranges listed in this lawsuit, but the numbers seem confusing with the various ranges for me to make any sense of it.

Quotes source post: 10351669

+1 and Jake thanks for the info.

Someone saw a dual row in an 05 996??????

Quotes source post: 10351910

The larger single IMS bearing cannot also be assumed in the 05-06 transition.

Update and a reminder - nothing can be done until the court accepts the settlement. That is supposed to happen this month. Please don't call the lawyers until I confirm that the court has accepted the deal. Regards,

You guys do realize that for Porsche to actually admit there is a problem with their design and agree to civil penalties or remedies, that the problem is far, far worse than anyone can imagine? If civil litigation were allowed to proceed through a court, discovery including interrogatories would probably do great damage to the brands reputation. Can you imagine what kind of emails, memos, notes, etc. have been sent back and forth between employees, techs, and engineers about this problem? Then throw depositions where cross examination is allowed in the mix and you just destroyed a company. Porsche has an A+++ legal team to fight any civil onslaught so you can be assured the problem is many times worse than you may think or they would have remained silent. And if there was any chance to insinuate a hazard to the consumer or public, its over.

Quotes source post: 10355505

And despite this treasure trove of info, no one on this list who is a class member has inquired of to see the discovery information!

Quotes source post: 10355832

Would you have to have suffered a failure to be a class member and gain access to discovery?

Generally business records can be obtained by: Consent Subpoena GJ Subpoena Search Warrant Other Court order Admissions and/or Denials Interrogotories can be objected to and forced to provide answer by Court. Deposition questions can be objected to and forced to answer by Court. This is from memory and prior experience. Im no lawyer.

Quotes source post: 10356042

No failure is required. Your car still has time to fail and you will be covered. You are an included class member until your car has been in service for 10 years.

Quotes source post: 10356091

Well, me and my 2002 are out. We need to recruit someone with an 03-04.

Quotes source post: 10356091

And considering the 996 was manufactured through the 2004 MY, it's safe to assume that most 996 owners are excluded. This settlement is a winner for the lawyers and maybe a select few who: (1) scour the web for 996 information, suffered a failure and know the settlement even exists, (2) have a late delivery '03 or an '04 model with a VIN that falls within the select defined ranges included in the settlement, and (3) own a car that has suffered a failure. And, if you aren't the original owner you're coverage is diminished materially. As wins go this is far from big. I'm certainly happy for anyone able to take advantage of it but you'll have to excuse me if I don't see this as a material victory. -Eric

Quotes source post: 10356464

I agree. The only thing I was hoping to savage from this was to get some official word on the single row IMS identification from the official source.

Quotes source post: 10356464

I'm only excluded due to the fact that I replaced my bearing... sigh.

Well, an interesting thread. Glad to see my '99 is now more valuable and can be marketed as more reliable when the time comes.

The fact this is happening south of the border means people here in Canada can take Porsche to small claims court as the limit for claims is now $20k !! What happened with IM'S will set precedent for any IMS claims on the m96 m97 line!!

So why only to 2005? There are Boxsters, Caymans and 911's that supposedly had the same IMS failure after 2005 (or it's an urban myth). What's the scoop? Anyone have access to PACE that can download the actual numbers? Thanks Bob James

Does the 2008 have IMS bearing issues?

Quotes source post: 10391415

Larger bearing but can still have issues, check out http://www.imsretrofit.com/ims-101/ , lots of good info. Cheers, Mike

Quotes source post: 10326924

Thanks for the Summary. Since this is Porsche NA i guess this includes Canada and Canadian Cars?

Quotes source post: 10395967

What about guys with cars with build dates in 03 or 04 who are withing the 10 year period, that haven't had the failure yet,and the car was bought used from a Porsche dealer? Do we get full or 25% reimbursement in case of a failure?

Quotes source post: 10396565

The 10 year limit is from date placed into service, which is after the build date so Yes, you're in.

Quotes source post: 10396782

Ya don't know why i was mentioning build dates when i knew it was the in service date. Mine was in September of 2004. So i am in, does that mean 100% reimbursement in case of a failure?

what about those who purchased a re-man engine in 09 for their 996? I know the re-man engines are suppose to have updates but if we get an IMS failure on one of these new reman motors then what? I would imagine this class action suit is setting precedent no?

Quotes source post: 10398706

That engine would have come with a 2year, 24000 mile warranty and the larger upgraded bearing. Failure incidence appears to be significantly (though not 100%) lower.

Nedster, you need to look at the settlement agreement to be certain, but as I recall, due to the age of your car at the time of failure, you are in the 25% recovery class .

Quotes source post: 10398706

This class action will not cover the reman engine failing, but it covers the original engine failure which caused the re manufactured engine to be installed, assuming the original engine failure was IMSB related.

Quotes source post: 10398953

Here in Canada we can sue in small claims court for up to $20K - given the IMSB has been well documented and even associated with a class action law suit in the USA will provide substantial grounds for any reman failed IMSB.

Quotes source post: 10398989

You make a good point. But as a plaintiff you still carry the burden of proof to convince the court the engine was defective. You can duplicate the efforts of the class action attorneys who were paid $950,000 to satisfy that burden of proof, or you can take a shortcut and ride along on their effort and review their discovery documents. That fact your engine failed proves nothing. You need to prove the failure was caused by a defective design, and that won't be easy on your own.

I'm not clear on the VIN ranges and the 8th digit being a 'check digit'. Using my browsers search, I type each character, but it can't match past WP0AA299 - which seems to mean that VIN WP0AA29984S621365 is NOT included even though it's a 2004 - is that true? Thanks

Quotes source post: 10399447

Just look at from 4S on.

Quotes source post: 10399173

+996 and the reason why this suit doesn't really mean anything to me.

Just found out about the settlement and it looks like my VIN is listed, WP0CB29825S730547 . I have an '05 Boxster S with 38kmi on it. No problems yet. How do I make sure I'm covered if my IMS fails in the next couple years? PS: See next post, trying to properly decode VIN.

Initially I thought I was covered but perhaps not. VIN is WP0CB29825S730547 . As I understand it the last 7 digits determine the factory and serial number, which should give a mfg date. Is this correct? From the IMS VIN list it looks like the last serial number for the Stuttgart factory is S6660555 where mine is S730547. It's a '05 987 Boxster S with 38kmi and no IMS issues so far. Thanks

I also have an 05 Boxster S outside the VIN range. It is a May 05 build date at Stuggart. There has been much discussion that the mid to later 05's got the newer upgraded IMS, so we can speculate that is why we are not included. Does that mean increased reliability? I can only hope so. I purchased my privately so even if it were covered it would be 25% at best, but since I am in Canada it does not apply. Oh well spring time and looking forward to some more driving. speakerdesign, my VIN is close to 100 after yours, almost twins!

I have read all the pages on this thread, but I am still confused on what I should do. I am the original owner of an '04 40th AE now with 39,xxx miles. I have not had RMS or IMS failures, in fact, no problems at all. I visited the site today for the first time in years. My VIN is WPOAA29974S621003. First, I cannot tell if I am in the class or not. Second, since I have not had any problems, do you recommend going to my local Porsche dealer for any sort of inspection or preventative maintenance? I am not sure what single row or double row bearings refer to. From what I read here, the single row bearings are more robust? Third, my in-service date was December, '03 -- so I guess this means I have six months to see if I have engine problems? (Or only until the lawsuit window closes?) I don't track the car, but do take it on occasional long, overnight highway drives through some rural areas...and my wife and I would hate to be stranded. If my '04 AE is one of the 10% manufactured that evidently has this problem, and I am approaching the 50,000 mile mark, what is your advice? From what I have gathered, there are "third party" solutions out there (probably installed by an independent shop) -- would that make sense? What does that cost? Or can my regular dealer handle? Sorry, I am probably the least mechanical owner on this board, but I love the car and intended to take it to my grave. Until tonight. I appreciate your advice and assistance.

Quotes source post: 10432545

I also have an '04 AE and it suffered an IMS at 27K. The engine was replaced by Porsche with the newer IMS which means it can't get the after market solution. YOU CAN! The original IMS in our car can be replaced with the after market IMS. If I could, I would. If I were you, I would definitely consider it. FYI: I also love my AE. I plan on keeping it too.

I replaced mine.. the PO didn't when he did the clutch at 60K. Mine was ok at 73K, but now it should be good for at least another 60K.

Quotes source post: 10432545

Yes your car is among the VINs that are listed. Line 13. So is my 40th. I am still on the original IMS, at about 30k.

Sounds like you and I are in the same boat. Thanks for the help deciphering the list of VINs. What are you going to do, just wait for the catastrophic engine failure or take pre-emptive action and replace with the aftermarket IMS? Does anyone on this board know the approximate installed price of the aftermarket IMS? Presumably a fraction of a replacement engine. Who makes the best one? With a 10% chance this motor will blow on the highway at 85 mph, at midnight, out in some rural area, I am tempted to just go ahead and replace the IMS either at the dealer or an independent shop, all on my dime. I am pretty risk averse. Then again, I've only got six months of "class coverage" remaining anyway. Maybe the solution is "watchful waiting" and stay close to home this summer, particularly since as the original owner I have a potential 100% reimbursement if/when the motor fails!

I can't say about post 2005 models, PAG did provide and improved IMS bearing as of 2006.

Update, The judgement has been approved. As soon as the final paperwork is ready, I'll post the full details as well as info on who to contact to file a claim. Best,

I wonder why 2001+.... I have a 2000. No leaks that I can tell so far.

I suffered the dreaded IMS failure on my 2004, with the classic marbles-rattling-in-a-can sound and all the oil pouring out with no warning. The shop initially thought it was a rear main seal failure, but once they had a chance to inspect, they called the next day with the 'bad' news that it was the IMS failure, which caused metal to shoot into the engine. I checked this site and found out about the class action. I checked my vin number, in-service date, mileage, and I bought Certified Pre-Owned, so I should be reimbursed 100% in the class action. I'm still bracing myself for having to pay for the engine replacement without getting reimbursed in the class action for whatever reason they dream up, although I should be covered, plus a couple hundred bucks for rental car. To answer someone's question about the 'third party solution,' once the shop found me a replacement engine, I had them order the retrofit IMS because, to me, it is cheap insurance in the event this happens again. I believe they ordered it through LN Engineering ( http://www.imsretrofit.com ). I think it was $650 and since the engine was being replaced and the old one was already out, there really wasn't any additional labor cost. I think they said it is something that can be done when you replace your clutch (which I also needed since oil poured all over that), so if you need that, it might be a good time. Having gone through this, and the unbelievable expense and inconvenience of having to get a whole new (used) engine, I would highly recommend getting the retrofit!!

Quotes source post: 10437215

2001-2005 had single roller bearings. -2000 cars had dual roller bearings. None of the dual roller bearing vehicles are included. Keep also in mind that even if it was included, there is no coverage at all if a failure happens over 10 years from the initial delivery date.

it does not matter what kind of a bearing is used in the IMS, as any bearing is submerged into oil so any bearing will eventually lose its grease and will fall apart. It is an essential design flaw, so, why do they only cover 01-05 cars? It is really a big deal, in 06+ cars it is same damn design but they have removed an option to pull IMS assembly out so bearing replacement is a very expensive job there, it requires to drop down motor, etc. Anybody who knows this stuff says same thing - it is a design issue, even with LN Eng fix they say you got to do it every 30-40K miles as even their super expensive bearing is not immortal and is not guaranteed to survive long in those conditions. It really sucks to be excluded from this as any MY 06-08 997.1 are essentially same cars with same motor but without an option to prevent this failure. PS. but I got to say lawyers are awesome - to 'accept responsibility' for a car made in 2001 with a 10 year cap in the year 2013 is a neat trick.

I've tried to read though this thread and can't seem the answer I'm looking for. I have an 04 C2 996 that had an IMS failure aprox 6 months ago. Porsche ended up providing me with a remanufactured engine provided I pay to install. Am I eligible for reimbursement on the installation or does this just cover the engine? Thanks, sorry if this has already been answered and I missed it.

confused just like most everyone else. i have a 2003 c4s with the VIN listed on the sourt document. In Service date is 7/2003 so it is within the 10 year service cut off. The car has not expericenced IMS failure (just like thousands of other m96 engines) i am geting ready to replace the clutch since the car has about 60k on it. My dealer recommends doing RMS and IMS (LNE) in the meantime. Does this court ruling help me with the cost of this service? I never recived a mailing, probably because i bought the car august of 2012. Do i call porsche NA or ask the dealer service advisor to contact? thank you

Quotes source post: 10481719

From the proposed settlement: "Repairs means the cost of parts and labor used to repair engine damage, including, without limitation, repair or replacement of the engine ..." So yes, the proposed settlement covers labor. The bigger question is are you the original owner or certified pre-owned purchaser? Or did you purchase it used without an ACPO warranty? The proposed reimbursement schedule: As I read it, you should be eligible for 100% of your out-of-pocket cost (parts and/or labor) if you purchased CPO and had less than 100K miles. If it was not CPO and you were not the original owner, a meager 25% reimbursement. What's not clear (though it might be buried in the document somewhere) is how it will be handled if Porsche already picked up part of the repair expense... My guess is that if Porsche picked up the engine and you picked up the labor (lets say $15K for engine and $5K for labor just to make the math easy), Porsche would claim they already have covered 75% of the cost, more than the 25% as a used purchaser you are entitled to, so you will get nothing additional. One might argue that the 'total repair cost' was whatever they charged you after the good-will contribution of the engine and you are due 25% of whatever your actual out of pocket was, but I doubt that is how it would be interpreted. Bottom line: This settlement is primarily of benefit to those who: Purchased a 996 as a CPO or original owner, Had a IMS related failure, and Repaired the IMS failure primarily at their own expense. Any other set of circumstances and the reimbursement, if any, falls off dramatically.

Quotes source post: 10482107

I'm no expert, just an owner that has read the documents. There appears to be no proposed reimbursement for proactively installing a replacement or upgraded bearing , ONLY THE COST OF REPAIR AFTER FAILURE.

Quotes source post: 10437790

Looks like this settlement is exactly tailored for someone in your circumstance. But I'm a bit confused on who's doing the work... Dealer or independent? Did you have it looked at by a Porsche dealer and they deny to cover the repair expense under the CPO warranty?

Quotes source post: 10482131

Thanks for your response, not the original owner but did buy it with the CPO. So who do I contact to find out about reimbursement? PCNA, local dealer, or one of the lawyers representing the case?

this is great news, where can you file a claim?

Ok -so I have a 2005 997 C2, build date March 2005, with 17k miles bought from the dealer new and had 6yr extended warranty which expired two years ago. Took to my indy for oil change last week, some weepage noticed. Pulled apart and leak is coming from IMS, not RMS and it is the larger diameter bolt (latest IMS bearing) which cannot be replaced w/o splitting engine. No metal in the filter or on the magnetic drain plugand car runs great. Car was serviced regularily. I assume its just a matter of time when later 2005 thru 2008 failures will surface. How could Porsche redesign this knowing that this has not been made bulletproof and further make it worse by making it prohibitively serviceable??? When will these models become part of the class action suit -it seems a no brainer in that they actually made the situation worse than the previsous scenario in terms of preventive measures. What do i do now-contemplating my next step.

Remember: The IMSB has NEVER been a serviceable component, no matter the diameter of the bearing. There are no Porsche part numbers for an IMSB. Prior to our development of the procedure and retrofit bearings there was nothing commercially available to address this issue. Just because something is changed doesn't mean that it has to make sense. There are big reasons why the earlier cars in the series are my favorites.

Thanks Jake. Meant that at least the older version can be pulled out and replaced by your permanent solution which is what i was going to do until I found out I have the latest version. With this bearng you have to pull and split engine-do you even have a permanent solution available for this yet? What would the all in ballpark cost be for you to do if i ship to you and engine has not been damaged(assuming) -I can call to discuss. Car is with Jay C. in Chatham Nj will be going over it on Tuesday AM -great start to the week.

We can apply the IMS Solution for the late cars at our facility. We can perform our work to disassemble the engine to facilitate the retrofit in only 3 day's time as we are very proficient at the task. We have yet to certify anyone to do a full tear down IMS Solution installation. Jay is Certified for the non-teardown installations on the 01-05 cars.

Customers aren't sheep, arrogance is the enemy of repeat business

Sporty, every IMSB I've ever seen was wet and weepy looking when the bell housing comes off. This is not an indicator of imminent bearing failure in any way. Which begs the question, why did your indy pull the tranny for an oil change? Was the motor dripping? Now to get at your larger question, if you believe Porsche has done a bad job, I would point out your car still has excellent residual value. Your best bet by far is sell the '05 and buy the car you really want. You could do an even swap for a 370 zapper, or a heavily optioned Camry, whatever turns you on. I just don't think someone can ever be happy once the seeds of doubt are planted. Even after throwing money at aftermarket parts and "preventative" repairs you'll still be left pondering ... (is my car gonna blow up today? is it making a funny sound? etc.) Porsches get weird as they age, as do we all. Some folks really enjoy the smell of gasoline and rotting leather. It's really all part of the ownership experience. If you can't embrace the foibles of an aging high performance sports car then surely it's time to move on.

so whats the deal here? 2 years ago, i had a 996 4S and my ims gave up while driving. 60k miles. the dealer refused to pay anything, in fact i ended up paying 175$ for them just to tell me that i need a new engine. fuxxxers! a good local shop ended saving my engine with a new bearing and few parts. cost me $3500. i would like to get some of that back, still have the receipts..

By looking at your avatar pic, looks like you came out great. They gave you a "new" but older, better car.

But thanks to Jake there are many bearing options out there now. Some are very reasonable. The only "solution" to the M96 engine woes, is replacement with something built better. I will be submitting a claim for my 25% of my $200 repair.

LordViscious -thanks for the first part of your reply - it answered the question i was asking/implying - does weeping indicate imminent failure of the bearing itself or is it just due to the the flange seal -does provide some comfort but not sure if it should (?) There was very little oil on the piping alongside the filter, no drips at all on my garage floor. Initially Indy and I thought it was an RMS so we decided to pull apart and see whats what. He indicated the leak was from the IMS, not RMS and which I inspected this morning. Quite frankly the flange area seemed barely moist to me with some clutch dust, it was not a big mess. The flange itself was not removed to inspect the bearing. No metal/plastic in the filter or on magnetic drain plug. How have you seen so many -are you a Porsche mechanic? If i swapped it would be for a 2009 or later 911, or maybe a 1970 - 1973 TRANS AM, or a 2013 Trans Am with 650HP(modified camaro)... the list can go on

Quotes source post: 10495578

You didn't mention what year the 4S is or what type of owner you are, but as I read it, - *if* the settlement if finalized, and - *if* your car was less than 10 years in-service at the time of repairs, and - *if* your documentation clearly shows it was an IMS related failure, you should be able to submit a claim for: - 25% of the repair cost if you purchased used on open market. - 100% of the repair cost if it the car was purchased/covered as a certified pre-owned. - 80% of the repair cost if you are the original owner with 60,000-70,000 miles at time of repair.

Quotes source post: 10495424

Yeah, I had a 996 C2 that failed. Not IMS though but from oval cylinders. I replaced the engine but didn't get the same feeling again, even a year later. Ended up selling the car and getting a Turbo instead. Good feeling's back

So who do we contact to file a claim? The contact info on the first page isn't clear. Thanks!

I own a 1999 bought new with 32,500 miles on it. Low milage in part to the IMS issue. I saw some metal flakes in the oil filter on the last oil change and decided to go ahead and replace the IMS with the LN kit. Glad I did, outer seal and race were trashed, one ball bearing had a chunk missing and inner seal was going bad. Pulled the pan and only had a couple of shavings in it, so think i caught most everything. Put in a new clutch and good to go. Them going back only 10 years for a known problem like this is pretty low on their part, we buy these cars and keep the mileage low on a lot of them. I purchased a BMW M6 in 2007 and it has twice the mileage and half the problems.

I can't believe I read the whole thread.....LOL All that and nothing concrete yet, eh? :-( I am inside 30 days until by CPO warranty expires. 3 months ago the plan was to do the IMS/RMS and replace the clutch about now but I'm waiting for the specifics on this settlement to see if replacing the IMS will cause me issues later. Crossing fingers there are updates/details soon.... :-) Sean

I have been informed that the final judgement will be available June 25th and I will post it here. Best,

Hey, Bob what's the status? Thanks

Case dismissed?

Any update would be appreciated. PL

Hey guys, This is my first post on this forum but I've been a part of many others over the years. I'm a new Boxster owner and don't have IMS issues, but figured I'd help out and give everyone closure on this thread. The official class action lawsuit website can be found here: http://www.imsporschesettlement.com/ Good Luck!

I just registered after being pointed to this forum by a fellow Boxter owner. My father's 05 Boxter S with 16k miles just had an IMS fail a few days ago. Any updates to this settlement we should be aware of? He did not receive any notice's in the mail, and the car currently sits at the dealer until we decide how to proceed.

I took a look at the site - what the heck does this mean? You must: Have suffered a documented IMS failure that caused you to pay for repairs out-of-pocket; or Have a documented IMS failure in the future that would require you to pay for repairs out-of-pocket. How can you have a documented IMS failure in the future? Does that mean qualifying cars are covered until they fall out of the constraints of the lawsuit? ** nevermind, looked deeper in the site, answered my own question... If your Class Vehicle experiences a verified IMS related engine damage after (XXXXXX date of class notice mailing), you will be eligible to receive payment for repair of the IMS related engine damage. You can recover monies you spent replacing or repairing the engine up to ten (10) years after the vehicle was placed in-service or up to 130,000 total miles on the vehicle, whichever comes first. - Cheers, Mike

I'm going out on a limb here and predicting 99.9% of Rennlister's who need to make a claim will be using K.L. Myles as their attorney. Just a guess.

Quotes source post: 10602400

has the Dealer or Porsche offered anything? interms of a Free Engine but you pay labour?

I have been told by Mr Harris, the attorney who supplied me with the info that the proper paperwork to process a claim will be released shortly. As soon as I have it, it will be posted/published here. Best,

So how does one determine the "in-service" date of their vehicle? It looks like I'm good until sometime next year, assuming my '04 went in-service in 2004.

Quotes source post: 10602975

Any Porsche dealer can look it up on their computer system from the VIN.

GREAT to hear. Too many disasters for too many people.

Why not '97 to '01 cars?

I will be posting everything needed to file a claim as soon as the claim period opens on July 17, best,

Quotes source post: 10605589

I think you mean 97' to 00'. The early M86/M96 engines had double roller IMS bearings. It is only the single roller bearing version that start with the 01' model year that gets the benefit of this campaign.

The claims process opens tomorrow, July 17. For the claims form and any info you need, please visit: www.IMSporschesettlement.com . Many thanks to Stephen Harris for acting to redress this situation. Regards,

I have 03 c4s with dec 02 in-svc and 74k miles. Just did ims/rms today. From what I read, no blow engine within 10 yrs, so it doesn't apply to me? PL

Quotes source post: 10615652

Since you proactively did your IMS, you're no longer eligible anyways.

What about someone like me is who looking to get into a 996? I am looking for a 2003 or 2004 996, how would this settlement help me if the IMS hasn't been updated?

Quotes source post: 10625689

It really doesn't... Even '03's and '04's have a pretty short amount of time before the 10 year window closes. If there was an IMS related engine failure between now and the 10 year and mileage limit, it would still need to be reviewed by Porsche before repairs, and best case only covered 25%. paying 75% of the cost of a dealer installed replacement motor isn't something you should even be remotely wishing for... FAR better strategy to just put on an IMS Guardian for $250 to give advance warning of IMSB deterioration prior to failure, or if you are paranoid about IMSB failure, go ahead and replace the it for ~$900 plus the tranny drop.

Got my package on the class action in the mail today. Will be filing shortly.

Quotes source post: 10625689

It won't, especially with the 10 year limit. If you are buying outside of the Porsche networks, the settlement is minimal anyways. Unless you want to take the chance of a future failure, either find a car with the bearings replaced (which is no 100% guarantee anyways) or look for another series of 911.

Quotes source post: 10626064

Selecting a 996 is fine, as long as it's a GT2, GT3 or Turbo

Seems as though you can exclude yourself and sue Porsche later if you have a failure or object the terms of the settlement and explain to the court the reason for the objection. If you do nothing, you can't sue later if you have a problem and are bound by the settlements terms. I have an '01 911 with only 23000 miles. I think that the only thing for me to do is object.

So just to clarify, they wont cover any part of a service invoice for an LN Engineering IMS Bearing retrofit (+Labor) installed in the past?

I plan to send formal objections to the proposed settlement, which I outline below. If you agree with these objections, I would encourage you to do the same when you received a notice that you are a class member. The first objection is that purchasers who had the foresight to purchase third-party warranties apparently will not be reimbursed under the settlement. This is patently unfair and contrary to public policy, which almost always excludes collateral source payments entirely. This provision penalizes class members who acted prudently in purchasing third-party warranties, rewards those who did not, and results in a windfall to PCNA. Such warranties were not purchased for PCNA's benefit and should not be treated as though they were. This provision is outrageous. It is difficult to believe that lawyers charged with protecting the interests of the class would consider agreeing to it. The second objection is that limit of 25% on reimbursement for repairs to Class Vehicles that were purchased used without ACPO is arbitrary, unfair, and without any legitimate justification. The financial harm caused by PCNA's conduct does not differ depending on whether the Class Vehicle was in possession of its original or a subsequent owner at the time of the engine damage, and neither does PCNA's liability based on the legal theories under which plaintiffs are most likely be prevail in this case. Furthermore, this provision actually rewards PCNA for failing to correct these issues while the vehicles were in possession of their original owners (or under PCNA warranty) and for concealing the defect and risk of catastrophic engine damage from both new and used purchasers alike. These are solely my personal views and plans based upon my personal situation. They are certainly not legal advice. If you received a notice and wish to lodge these or any other objections, write to the address listed in the notice under Item 16 on page 7.

I found this in the class action declaration: Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.) Discovery in this matter has shown that approximately 57,929 Class Vehicles were sold in the United States, and approximately 30% of the Class Vehicles were sold in California.

Has any class member asked for the discovery docs yet? I'm really curious. Interesting to note that according to the post above mine, Porsche spends about $6,450 on each repair and has repaired about .05% of all class vehicles. Also, I'm no lawyer, but the wording seems super sloppy. "defective IMS shaft" means "defective intermediate shaft shaft". No mention of the bearing. It's dumb that Porsche is pretty much admitting there is a problem, but then saying it's too late because most of the vehicles are old now. It would have been a much better settlement if it was a 20 year / 200,000 mile time period, not 10 / 130,000.

I just received mine in the mail. I did an IMS upgrade in Feb. Do I qualify for reimbursement?

Quotes source post: 10631347

I got the forms in the mail. I have made no repairs or had any failures, 2004, 49k. should I opt out to reserve my right to file in the future? Sent from my iPad using Rennlist

I' ve been informed that there is a new claim form. I have it in pdf but it looks like hell with the formatting problems if I cut and paste. You can open the attachment or visit www.IMSporschesettlement.com . and download it there. Best,

Quotes source post: 10635273

Have you received any advice on this or made a decision? Mine is a 2002 so the settlement is useless for me.

Quotes source post: 10749696

Nope

I have left 2 voicemails for access to discovery document data room... no return calls as of yet. When push comes to shove, I will likely opt out (NLT 10/17 post mark) since mine has not failed yet to my knowledge, so I little incentive to stay in the class due to short duration of coverage and meaningless recovery % (I bought second hand non-CPO). I will ask how many of the four class representatives fall into the category of Used non-ACPO... and whay the hell they would agree to 25% reimbursement as fair... crazy.

Quotes source post: 10754157

Thank you for trying to get the discovery docs. It boggles my mind that for years this subject has been debated, then when we can finally get some real info from Porsche, the class members say "meh" and don't ask for any of it. Either that, or I really don't understand how discovery docs work.

Quotes source post: 10754157

If I recall correctly, the genesis of the class action suit was from 996 CPO buyers who had IMSB failures while under CPO warranty, and still had warranty denial or only partial coverage (engine, not labor). They were, in my opinion, rightfully pissed. That was the class segment that got the biggest relief (other than the attorneys). As for opting out, the cost of proactively replacing the IMSB maybe $1,500-$2,000 tops. Much less if you already have the transmission down for other reasons, like a clutch or RMS. A magnetic chip detector is only $250 and will likely give you warning before failure, so you can put that in and wait until you either get a warning or have the transmission down for other reasons to install a replacement IMSB. Almost any reimbursement scenario from Porsche would other than "well pay 100%, free loaner car, have a nice day" would cost you more than taking preventative measures. This settlement is clearly for those whom had catastrophic failures while under original factory or CPO warranty and still incurred huge repair costs. It's of virtually zero value to someone who is aware of the IMSB issue, knows about preventative strategies, and has an engine that is running well. The most screwed are CPO or original purchase owners who had a catastrophic failure under warranty, were told by Porsche it would not be covered, and opted to dump the car at a big loss instead of repairing. No soup for you!

I was contacted by the class' counsel (along with many of you, I'm sure) and the way I read it, the $1,500 or so I paid to proactively replace by IMS bearing won't be covered. Am I assessing this correctly?

Quotes source post: 10760679

Yes, you are.

There are ( or at least were) about 5-6 docs, posted on the class website. You can download everything about the case. I don't think the terms are final until December 2 when the Judge approves everything.

Spoke to lawyer, I may NOT have access to the discovery docs as they were provided pursuant to a gag order from PCNA, blah blah blah. I tried, they said no. I'm opting out since I have less than a month of effctive coverage and I plan to do some preventative fix on my own dime. Porsche really sucks for doing this to their affected car owners if you ask me.

You might as well opt out. File your own suit, order discovery of their doc's and enjoy the reading. All of the documents from the original suit are on file to use as a guide. But you need to have actual damages from a failed IMSB to make a claim. No failed IMSB = no damages = no suit. Did they refuse to give you the depositions as well? They would be an interesting too.

Quotes source post: 10813025

Now you tell me... ha. I may just call them back and ask for those, I can take rejection.

Question 1: I have a 2002 996, no IMS failures, which means the class action lawsuit will do me no good (>10 yrs == no pay out). In this case, the general consensus seems to be to opt out of the class action suit. Otherwise you are bound by the stipulations of the suit and you cannot pursue any further action. Let me know if that is correct.

Question 2: What happens if you have a 2002 996 C2 where the engine was replaced in 2004? The car was put into service in 2002 but the replacement engine was put into service in 2004. Anyone have any idea how how the class action suit would rule in that case? It's not clear!

Question 3: Both my wife and I received a claim letter. What would happen if I opt out and my wife opts in for the same car? Is the suit per person or per vehicle? This is the same 2002 996 mentioned above.

With your 2002, If you haven't already 1) had an IMS failure that 2) resulted in engine damage and 3) you repaired the engine either wholly or partially at your own cost, the settlement has no benefit for you. Opt out if you like, but that will also be of essentially zero benefit.

Quotes source post: 10827521

Are you saying that you are having IMS troubles with the new engine or just a hypothectical?

#1 - I have the same year and model of car. I discussed this situation with Stephen M. Harris, KP&C. He advised that I opt outfrom the program. Since I would not be bound by any final agreement I would be able to pursue my own suit or negotiations. #2, #3 - I suggest you contact Mr. Harris.

Quotes source post: 10828921

Whoa whoa whoa. I am reading from many contributors to this forum about "opting out" under certain circumstances. I definitely fit those circumstances, HOWEVER, what constitutes "opting out?" (I have an 02 996 with no problems -- to date.) If one does not file, is one automatically enrolled in the suit (i.e., one is automatically named in the suit?? Is there specific paperwork needed to opt out? I think I would want it to be known that I have opted out, in case I run into problems in the near future. Thanks -- I thought I understood it, but I now think I've missed something.

Having sold my 996 a few months ago I don't check this forum as much as I used to. Just thought I would see if there was any update on this? I tried searching via Google but couldn't find anything definitive.

How do I view the reference document? I have a 2002 c4s never had issues...now has 103k mi.

Quotes source post: 12429987

You're way too late for that case. It was decided on and settled already.