The GM V8 L87 Class Action , Inside the Consolidated Lawsuit Reshaping the Truck and SUV Market

One of the most operationally significant automotive class action cases of 2026 is related to General Motors’ 6.2-liter V8 L87 engine. Houchin et al. v. General Motors LLC, case number 2:25-cv-11462 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is a consolidated case that brings together over a dozen individual filings from owners of GM full-size trucks and SUVs with the 6.2-liter V8 engine that surfaced throughout 2025.

The L87 engine, fitted to model years 2019 through 2024 across some of GM’s most lucrative nameplates, is accused in the 389-page consolidated complaint filed in early 2026 of having a manufacturing defect that causes catastrophic engine failure, abrupt loss of propulsion at highway speeds, and occasionally engine fires. According to NHTSA’s own field reporting, the problem’s scope is quite significant. About half of the 28,102 engine-related complaints that the FDA has recorded are associated with catastrophic breakdowns. The problem has been linked to twelve collisions and twelve injuries.

Engineers shudder at the mechanical tale that lies behind the lawsuit. Defects in the connecting rod and crankshaft bearings, along with what the consolidated complaint characterizes as out-of-specification crankshafts and silt contamination in the oil galleries, are said to be the cause of the L87’s failures. The engine’s friction and heat are too much for the bearings to manage consistently, which causes a lubrication breakdown that eventually results in catastrophic failure.

Owners describe a specific sequence that includes an inexplicable engine knock that gets louder, intense rattling that the average truck buyer would never hear from a brand-new car, and complete power loss while driving. The safety concern that prompted the NHTSA inquiry in the first place is captured by the fact that some owners have reported the malfunctions happening at highway speeds. After months of consumer complaints, the FDA began its preliminary inquiry in January 2025.

The portion of this tale that the plaintiffs have criticized the most is the April 2025 recall, officially known as NHTSA Recall 25V-274 and GM’s internal recall N252494000. About 597,630 cars were recalled by GM, which instructed dealers to check engines for the diagnostic trouble code P0016. Complete replacements were given to engines that registered the code. A alternative fix was applied to engines that failed to register the code: a new oil filter, a new oil fill cap, and a change from the original 0W-20 motor oil to the thicker 0W-40 GM Dexos R oil.

A 10-year/150,000-mile special coverage warranty extension was also provided by GM. According to GM, the solution is a significant reaction to the failure pattern. The consolidated lawsuit describes it as “egregiously inadequate”—a “band-aid” that ignores the underlying manufacturing defect and, according to the plaintiffs’ calculations, increases fuel consumption by 3% to 4% due to the heavier oil viscosity, resulting in an extra $1,000 in fuel expenses over the vehicle’s lifetime.

The pooled case’s legal allegations go beyond the typical automotive fault template. According to both express and implied warranty doctrines, plaintiffs claim a breach of guarantee. They claim that GM was aware of the engine fault from the beginning of manufacturing rather than learning about it through field complaints. This is known as deceptive omission. They claim that in the dozens of jurisdictions where impacted owners bought cars, state consumer protection laws were broken.

In addition to what the plaintiffs claim is the wider financial injury from an insufficient recall solution, the action demands damages for lost value, repair costs, and loss of vehicle use. Some of the biggest auto litigation cases in American history have been handled by Hagens Berman, the firm designated as interim co-lead counsel. Shelby R. Smith and the firm’s managing partner, Steve W. Berman, are in charge of the case. The fact that Hagens Berman was chosen as lead counsel indicates how serious the plaintiffs’ claims are; the firm usually doesn’t take on matters that don’t yield significant settlements.

At this point, estimating the financial ramifications for General Motors is challenging. The 600,000-vehicle recall is already one of the biggest GM recall initiatives in recent memory. When time, transportation, and parts are taken into account, replacement engines, which dealers are required to install on cars where the diagnostic code triggers, usually cost between $10,000 and $15,000 per unit.

Observing the course of this case over the last 18 months has given me the impression that the L87 case exemplifies a particular aspect of contemporary automobile fault litigation. The recall was mandated by the NHTSA investigation. The plaintiffs contend that the remedy provided by the recall was insufficient. The combined class action resulted from the insufficient remedy. Every phase of the procedure produced more field data, documentation, and legal exposure than the one before it.

With impacted GM full-size trucks and SUVs fetching lower resale values than comparable models years prior to the recall, the used car market has already started pricing in the risk. Questions regarding discovery, expert testimony on the underlying manufacturing defect, and GM’s strategic determination of which course results in the lowest aggregate cost will determine whether the case ultimately results in a significant GM settlement, a more extensive engine replacement program, or a courtroom outcome that goes to trial.