6th Circuit Won’t Rethink $25M Crash Award Against Nissan

In a decisive move, the Sixth Circuit panel has declined to revisit its ruling against Nissan North America Inc. regarding a hefty $25 million award stemming from a fatal crash. The full court has also stood firm, refusing to entertain the matter any further.

6th Circuit Won’t Rethink $25M Crash Award Against Nissan : Panel Upholds Previous Decision

All grounds raised by Nissan in its plea for rehearing or an en banc rehearing were thoroughly addressed in the panel’s February verdict on the carmaker’s indemnification claims against Continental Automotive Systems Inc., as affirmed by a Monday order from the Sixth Circuit. The panel reaffirmed its stance, with no request for a full court rehearing, as per the order.

Misinterpretation Alleged by Nissan

Nissan contended in its petition that the panel misapplied state law in its interpretation of the record from the underlying California case, which led to the $25 million verdict. This case, brought by families of three crash victims involving a Nissan vehicle, found the brake system defective.

The contention arose from the interpretation of the phrase “brake system” in the California jury’s verdict form, which Nissan claims referred specifically to Continental’s parts, not the entire braking system of the vehicle. Nissan argued that this misinterpretation led to the panel’s conclusion that Continental’s parts didn’t cause the crash, absolving the brake supplier from financial obligations.

Undermining Confidence in Indemnification

Nissan further asserted that the ruling undermines confidence in indemnification agreements like the one it shares with Continental. The agreement stipulates Continental’s indemnification of Nissan for claims related to the supplier’s parts, regardless of whether those parts directly caused damages. The panel’s ruling, Nissan argued, sets a precedent detrimental to such agreements, a contention that the court did not address in its Monday order.