Texas Justices Hint Suit Over Defective Ford Explorer Came Late

Justices on the Texas Supreme Court appeared receptive Wednesday to an argument from Ford Motor Co. that claims against it should be tossed because they weren’t brought within 15 years of the sale of a potentially defective 2001 Ford Explorer.

The disagreement hinges on the true date the Explorer was sold and what steps in a vehicle transaction must be met to constitute a sale.

Reasoning that a sale may be complete even before full payment is made, justices suggested the injured person suing Ford doesn’t have a case. The date Ford released the Explorer to an independent dealership likely constituted the sale date, several justices suggested. That happened 16 years before the wreck—outside the window for relief laid out in state law.

Justice Brett Busby said deposition testimony from Ford may have been sufficient to establish it had received full payment at the time it released the vehicle.

“Why isn’t that evidence?” Busby said.

Responding to an argument that Ford had offered inconsistent deposition testimony on the sale date, Justice Jeff Boyd said inconsistencies must matter, and in this case they don’t. Even if Ford was still awaiting full payment at the time it released the Explorer, it would’ve maintained a right to repossess the vehicle, indicating the sale’s completion, he said.

This case arose in May 2016 when Samuel Gama filed suit against Ford, claiming his Explorer’s top heavy design made it more susceptible to over-steering and rollover. Driving in Collin County in north Texas, he swerved when another vehicle suddenly braked in front of him, sending his Explorer skidding off the highway where it rolled several times, collapsing the roof.

Gama was left permanently disabled with severe brain damage. His wife and his mother joined him in suing Ford.

Receipt Missing

Ford said the claims are barred under the state’s repose law because they were brought more than 15 years after it released the vehicle to a dealership. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claims. But an appeals court said it’s unclear if a sale actually occurred, citing a lack of evidence, like a sales receipt, that Ford was ever paid in full by the dealership.

Ford’s witnesses did little to clear up the confusion, offering what the appeals court called inconsistent testimony during depositions. They were asked if the company always collects full payment before releasing a vehicle. They didn’t firmly say when Ford considers a vehicle sold. It could be at the time of release to a dealer or later, when a dealer sells or leases it to a customer.

Unconvinced the definition of sale was met when Ford released the vehicle to the dealership, the appeals court reinstated the claims against Ford and remanded the case to the lower court.

In oral argument Wednesday, Ford’s lawyer, William Mennucci of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, LLP, said the standard to prove a sale date reached by the appeals court imposes an “impossibly high burden.” Although Ford doesn’t have a receipt of the sale, it does have business records showing the Explorer was released to the dealership more than 15 years before the wreck and that Ford was paid at that time.

Responding to that argument, Gama’s lawyer, Jeffery Levinger of Levinger, P.C., said the issue of whether full payment constitutes a sale was “made material” by Ford. During deposition, representatives for the automaker said the price is paid in full on the release date. That conflicts with their own documents, Levinger said, which establishes policies on payment plans.

The case is Ford Motor Co. v. Parks, Tex., No. 23-0048, oral argument 2/21/24.