Nearly 600,000 truck owners learned their vehicles could suffer sudden engine seizure without warning, despite evidence that General Motors had documented the defect years earlier. Internal records and federal investigations now show the issue was known as early as late 2021, yet sales continued while failures mounted.
By November, a Michigan federal court consolidated multiple lawsuits into a single class action, amplifying scrutiny of GM’s response. At the center of the case are safety risks, delayed recalls, and disputed fixes that left hundreds of thousands of owners exposed. Here’s what’s happening as the litigation unfolds…
The Hidden Problem Emerges
General Motors first acknowledged troubling engine behavior in December 2021 with Technical Service Bulletin 19-NA-218, which documented bearing failures in its 6.2L V8 L87 engines. That bulletin triggered internal investigations in February 2022, June 2023, and July 2024, yet no recall followed during that period.
Federal involvement escalated matters. In January 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation covering 877,710 vehicles after receiving 28,102 complaints. Regulators noted that this volume exceeded comparable defect cases, suggesting an unusually widespread issue. The timing raised concerns among investigators and owners alike, as GM’s recall only materialized after government pressure, not as a proactive safety measure.
Engine Failures Tied to Design Flaws
Investigations traced the failures to manufacturing and design defects rather than normal wear. Sediment accumulation on connecting rods and contamination within oil galleries accelerated bearing erosion, while some crankshafts were produced outside required specifications.
According to Hagens Berman’s class-action complaint, these conditions led to “breaching of the engine block by the connecting rod and/or engine seizure.” Owners reported abrupt power loss and complete engine shutdowns, sometimes during highway travel. Such incidents heightened immediate safety risks, leaving drivers without propulsion or warning.
Plaintiffs argued that the defects were inherent to the engine design and manufacturing process, making sudden failure not only foreseeable but inevitable for a significant portion of affected vehicles.
Recall Scope and Lingering Questions
In April 2025, GM announced a recall covering 597,630 vehicles in the United States and 721,000 worldwide. The action addressed 28,102 reported incidents, including 14,332 propulsion losses. However, the recall excluded 2019 and 2020 models, even though owners reported similar failures.
By October, NHTSA expanded its scrutiny, adding 286,000 vehicles to the investigation and questioning whether the recall fully addressed the defect. Legal observers and plaintiffs contended that limiting the recall left many owners unprotected and failed to resolve the underlying causes. The exclusion of earlier model years became a central issue, fueling claims that the remedy was incomplete and inadequately scoped.
Fixes Fall Short, Critics Say
GM’s proposed remedy focused on inspections, switching to higher-viscosity 0W-40 oil, and replacing engines in roughly 3% of recalled vehicles. Critics argued this approach treated symptoms rather than root causes like contamination and out-of-spec manufacturing, which could persist even in replacement engines.
Production pressures compounded delays. Supply chain strains at the Tonawanda Engine Plant in upstate New York led to overtime shifts and dealer backlogs. Some owners waited weeks for parts and repairs. By mid-2025, only 198,000 vehicles had received remedies, leaving more than 400,000 owners still awaiting resolution and raising questions about the recall’s real-world effectiveness.
Legal Consolidation Accelerates
Litigation gained momentum with Powell v. General Motors, filed in February, followed by additional lawsuits through June. On November 13, Judge Shalina D. Kumar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan consolidated 12 cases into a single class action, citing the prevalence of the alleged defect.
The court appointed DiCello Levitt, Hagens Berman, Lieff Cabraser, and Miller Law Firm as lead counsel, known collectively as the “Miller Slate.” Judge Kumar found these firms “best able to represent the interests of the putative class,” pointing to extensive investigations, expert involvement, and prior automotive defect litigation, including related GM engine cases.
Safety, Costs, and What Comes Next
Reports tied the L87 defect to crashes and injuries, while GM disclosed rising warranty costs linked to engine problems in 2025. Analysts estimated recall and remediation expenses could reach hundreds of millions of dollars. GM extended warranties to 10 years or 150,000 miles for inspected vehicles; however, plaintiffs continued to pursue claims for breach of warranty and diminished resale value.
The litigation now underscores broader industry concerns. Delays between the December 2021 bulletin and the April 2025 recall highlighted oversight gaps, while disputes over excluded models raised trust issues. For hundreds of thousands of owners, resolution depends on court outcomes that could shape disclosure standards, safety accountability, and future recall practices across the auto industry.
Sources:
DiCello Levitt Appointed Lead Counsel in Nationwide GM 6.2L Engine Defect Litigation. DiCello Levitt, November 13, 2025.
GM L87 V8 Engine Failure Class Action. Hagens Berman, accessed November 2025.
GM Recalling Nearly 600,000 U.S. Vehicles Over Engine Issue. Reuters, April 29, 2025.
Part 573 Safety Recall Report 25V-274. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), April 24, 2025.
NHTSA to Expand Probe Into 286,000 GM Vehicles Over Possible Engine Failure Issue. Reuters/NHTSA, October 27, 2025.
L87 Engine Recall Drove Up GM Warranty Expenses in Q2 2025. GM Authority, July 23, 2025.