The Simon Law Group and The Trial Lab Secure Historic Verdict of $161 Million in Soulliere v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. Motorcycle Accident Case

On June 8, 2013, Joey’s crash occurred. Months later, Suzuki still had not implemented the recall. Rather, they were internally discussing their inevitable liability for future product liability lawsuits. From an August 9, 2013 Sales Report: “Generation of hydrogen is a fact, and we think we must do it now that we found out about it. In case a PL [[lawsuit]] happens and asked if we knew, we would have only “Yes” [[as an answer]].”

In October 2013, Suzuki finally implemented the recall. Just prior to then, on October 5, 2013, Suzuki formulated their “reasoning” for the delay: “I believe that, as long as the timing of the first report is known, the details thereafter can be omitted. . . . Since it took time to identify the cause, as an image, it should be something like this: Several FTIRs came in before the first investigation; Despite the investigation the cause was not identified, so we didn’t have any proposal for a countermeasure; and thereafter several more FTIRs came in; And we investigated again, but the cause could not be identified after all; After we finally identified the cause and until we made a decision on the action, there were many meetings in a relatively short period of time. That is what I think.”

Ultimately, Suzuki identified the defect was present on all Suzuki motorcycles of the GSX-R 600 and 750 series manufactured from 2004-2013 (and the GSX-R 1000 models made between 2005 and 2013). But again, Suzuki’s recall only acknowledged the “spongy” brake, i.e., gradual loss of braking power. They wholly ignored the reports of sudden brake failure, and certainly did not admit in the recall that such failures could occur from the corrosion caused by the defective brakes.

BANKRUPTCY

While Suzuki’s carefully crafted recall was being coordinated, they were also taking steps to severely limit their liability in the United States. The wholly-owned subsidiary of Suzuki Motor Corporation, American Suzuki Motor Company (who had distributed Joey’s bike), filed for bankruptcy in November 2012. A week prior, a new corporation, Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., was formed. Through the bankruptcy process, Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. purchased the entirety of the former American Suzuki Motor Company. However, the purchase agreement was careful to limit product liability against the newly-formed company. Despite this transaction, nothing really changed. Top officers maintained their roles, the exact products continued to be distributed, employees even continued to use their same business cards from the defunct company.

It was with the above plan that Suzuki Motor Corporation was able to limit its liability here in the United States. Indeed, in Joey’s case, Judge Frederick Horn (retired) granted summary judgment in favor of Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. on the grounds that he could not collaterally attack the bankruptcy court’s approval of the purchase agreement. Thereafter, Joey was left to continue his battle against Suzuki Motor Corporation only.

THE 2018 TRIAL AND FIRST APPEAL

In 2018, Joey’s case went to trial in Judge Glenn Salter’s courtroom in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. Gabe Houston of the Trial Lab and Thomas Feher of The Simon Law Group were Joey’s trial attorneys. They put on an amazing case, and obtained a verdict of $7.5 million (just over $6 million of which accounted for punitive damages). Costs and interest were added to the judgment. Suzuki moved for JNOV, arguing in part that Joey failed to connect his crash with the recall condition. In response, we argued that such a connection could be made through motorcycle engineering expert Jeff Hyatt. (In pre-trial proceedings, the trial court found that Jeff Hyatt lacked the requisite metallurgy qualifications to link the corrosion stemming from the defect to the zinc particulate formation, although the court did indicate that Hyatt could opine on what effects a solid particle, like zinc particulate, would have on braking capabilities. Ultimately, Hyatt was not called at trial).

In January 2019, Suzuki appealed the judgment. The appeal was fully briefed and orally argued. On December 8, 2020, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued its opinion. The appellate court found that certain evidence was erroneously introduced, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. As to the evidence, the court found error in: 1) the trial court’s refusal to admit Joey’s alleged statement to the responding officer that his brakes “locked up”, 2) the trial court’s instruction under CACI 204 (willful suppression), and 3) the trial court’s admission of evidence of the recall. Based on these errors, the appellate court vacated the judgment. However, because of Suzuki’s post-trial JNOV, and Plaintiff’s offer of proof regarding Hyatt’s connection between the crash and the recall condition in response to that JNOV, the appellate court remanded for Plaintiff to make such an offer of proof. If he could, a new trial would be granted. If not, “judgment in favor of Suzuki on all claims.”

REMAND, GRANT OF NEW TRIAL, AND MORE APPEALS

Following the appeal and remand instructions, we got to work again. The problem, though, was that the trial court had already precluded Hyatt from opining on the formation of hard particulate in the brake system, yet we needed Hyatt to have that foundation in order to present his seal disruption opinions. Fortunately, Suzuki’s years of documentation of the various customer complaints contained numerous examples of hard particulate formation in the brake systems. Being careful not to violate the rules of evidence, including Sanchez concerns, but also cognizant of the wide range of materials which can be properly relied upon by expert witnesses, we presented our offer of proof via a new declaration of Jeff Hyatt. Travis Davis, partner at the Simon Law Group, then presented an oral offer of proof to the Court. It was highly contentious, and was witnessed by no less than a dozen Suzuki attorneys and executives. Following the oral offer of proof, the parties fully briefed the evidentiary and other issues. Ultimately, on October 8, 2021, the trial court granted a new trial.

Following the grant of a new trial, Suzuki took a writ and filed an appeal. Both were denied. Suzuki then petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the denial of the appeal. This too was denied. A new trial was imminent.

2023 TRIAL

The 2023 trial was led by the perfect team for this case. Gabe Houston, who had originally brought this case to the Simon Law Group and had tried the 2018 trial, was intimately aware of the minute details. Travis Davis, who heads the Law and Motion Department at The Simon Law Group, was acutely sensitive to the significant evidentiary issues which were ever-present at trial. Robbie Munoz, associate trial attorney at The Simon Law Group, brought the passion and human component to Joey’s story. Jenelle Davis, the lead paralegal, brought the perfect level of organization and dedication to managing an overwhelming file with constant pleadings, various vendors, and numerous expert witnesses. And Tonyalyn Hawley, paralegal, expertly organized the massive trial binders. Akram Al-Ziab, of Rackico, provided technical support during trial.

A product liability case requires many expert witnesses, and this case was no exception. We had an accident reconstructionist, motorcycle riding expert, motorcycle engineering expert, NHTSA expert (regarding expertise in recalls), an orthopedic surgeon, a neurosurgeon, a life care planner, an economist, and a metallurgist (along with percipient experts necessary to lay the foundation for our metallurgist). A lesson learned from the first appeal prompted us to retain an expert metallurgist to make that crucial connection between the “recall condition” and Joey’s crash. We made that connection at trial.

Gabe Houston directed all liability witnesses, and did so masterfully. This was a case that Gabe knew intimately, and that was clear. Travis Davis handled all pre-trial and in-trial law and motion. On average, he was briefing the court every other day—some weeks a brief was necessary every single day. He also guided Gabe and Robbie on the evidentiary pitfalls that were looming because of Suzuki’s successful appeal of the first judgment. It was clear the court was more concerned than normal about admitting evidence until foundation was absolutely established—it was a hurdle but also protects us from future appeals, if any. Robbie Munoz handled all damages witnesses. He truly let Joey’s pain and story come through. One significant hurdle we faced was the gap in time between the crash and this new trial. 10 years had passed. Joey was admittedly tired of the legal process and had to continue to live his life. He was active and lived through the pain. Robbie was able to convey this realistic aspect of Joey’s journey. In his rebuttal, Robbie presented a simple yet powerful message: “It’s important to talk about the difference between listening and hearing. People can hear things, can audibly hear things in passing but listening takes effort. Listening means you are actually seeing that person. You’re actually paying attention to that person. Suzuki may have heard. They may have heard Joey but they have never listened.”

In the end, the jury awarded exactly what we asked for in compensatory damages—$11 million. Phase two then occurred, which consisted of a short stipulation of the financial status of Suzuki Motor Corporation (about $33 billion in sales annually). Gabe then put on a seriously compelling closing argument, asking for a range of $92 million to $337 million (representing a day of sales and 1% of annual sales). The jury believed in Joey, and, equally as important, believed that Suzuki was wrong to hide their dangerous and deadly defect from the public, and awarded $150 million in punitive damages.

We undoubtedly expect post-trial motions, and possibly another appeal, but we will never stop fighting for our client.