BG Products Engine Performance Restoration and Protection Plan Missouri Class Action

This class action relates to an Engine Performance Restoration Kit from Defendant BG Products, Incorporated, which included a Lifetime BG Protection Plan. The complaint alleges that BG has violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the common law principle of money had and received, although the specifics of the allegations are unclear.

The class for this action is all Missouri residents who bought a consumer protection product made by BG, between November 2, 2015 and November 2, 2020.

The plaintiff in this case, Deshoun Goodwin, owns a 2012 Audi A4. Goodwin bought the Engine Performance Restoration Kit for $50.61.

The complaint appears to allege that the kit contained three components. First, it had EPR Engine Performance Restoration and Advanced Formula MOA, which the complaint calls vehicle protection products under Missouri law. The complaint claims these first two components have a value of no more than $30.

The kit also contained a Lifetime BG Protection Plan, which the complaint alleges was worth the remainder of the kit value, or more than $20. The complaint claims, “Under Plan 2, applicable to [Goodwin’s] Vehicle, the Lifetime BG Protection Plan obligates [BG] to pay for repairs to the engine, among other systems.”

Goodwin took his Audi to a place called Molle Audi of Kansas City on February 28, 2019 and paid it “for the labor associated with the engine performance restoration service.”

A little less than five months later, the complaint alleges, Goodwin “presented the Vehicle to Audi Shawnee Mission because of an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp.” The complaint says the facility made a diagnosis of “internal engine damage, requiring over $6,600 of repairs.” It asserts, “The repairs to the engine of the Vehicle are covered under the Lifetime BG Protection Plan.”

Following that, the complaint enumerates a number of ways it claims BG did not comply with the provisions of the Missouri Vehicle Protection Product Act, which it says BG was required to comply with because it was selling a vehicle protection product.

A number of points are unclear in this complaint. First, why did Goodwin buy the engine restoration kit and have the procedure performed? What was it intended to achieve, and did it achieve that end?

Second, is the complaint alleging that the procedure was responsible for the engine’s need for repair or did the procedure simply fail to restore the engine? Or is the procedure not at issue and the complaint simply claiming that BG should have covered the repair as being required in the vehicle’s subsequent “lifetime”?

Third, were the repairs performed? Did he present a claim for payment of the repairs to BG, and did BG reject it? This is implied, but no reasons are stated for the rejection or for Goodwin’s alleged right to require payment. The specific allegations in the complaint against BG are thus not entirely clear.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Automobile or Auto Parts, Denial of Benefits, Insurance