Archive

ShareThis Page
GM placed switch order 2 months before recall | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

GM placed switch order 2 months before recall

The Associated Press
| Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:01 a.m
GeneralMotorsDocumentsJPEG0b616
FILE - This April 1 2014 file photo shows the ignition switch of a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt in Alexandria, Va. Emails released Monday, Nov. 10, 2014 from a court case show that General Motors Co. ordered 500,000 replacement ignition switches almost two months before telling government safety regulators that the switches would be recalled. (AP Photo/Molly Riley, File)

DETROIT — Emails released in a court case show that General Motors Co. ordered a half-million replacement ignition switches nearly two months before telling the government that its small cars should be recalled because the switches were defective.

The emails, released Monday by Texas personal injury attorney Robert Hilliard, revive questions about what GM knew about the defective switches and when, and how forthcoming the company was in congressional testimony and in a GM-funded investigation into its conduct by former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas.

And they are fodder for federal prosecutors who are investigating whether GM misled government safety regulators in the ignition switch case.

The chain of emails involving lower-level GM workers and employees at Delphi Corp. seems to indicate that GM knew at least by Dec. 18 that the switches were the cause of air bag nondeployment in certain models such as the Chevrolet Cobalt and needed to be recalled. The Valukas report, which didn’t mention the switch order, said GM executives didn’t decide internally on a recall until January and alerted the government about the decision Feb. 7. Also, the order was not mentioned when CEO Mary Barra subsequently testified before Congress.

The switches can slip out of the run position, causing engines in cars such as the Cobalt to stall. If that happens, the power steering, brakes and air bags are disabled, and people can lose control of their cars. GM eventually recalled 2.6 million small cars for the problem, which has caused at least 32 deaths.

The emails in the chain, which run from December into February, call the matter “urgent” and eventually use the words “safety issue.” The original order was made by a woman who works for an outside contractor for GM but has a GM email address.

GM says it is standard procedure to start the parts-ordering process before a recall decision is made. Messages were left Monday seeking comment from Valukas.

Peter Henning, a former federal prosecutor who is a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, said federal prosecutors will have a “field day” with the emails, because the size, timing and cost of the parts order cast doubt on GM’s statements that senior management acted as soon as it found out about the problem.

Someone higher up in GM, Henning said, would have had to authorize the parts order, and investigators will want to know who that was.

“That’s not coming out of petty cash. Even for a company like GM,” Henning said. “If I’m an outside contractor with a GM email, I’m not sending that order through without explicit directions.”

Hilliard said GM should have told the government and warned its customers as soon as it knew about the problem. For his clients alone, a warning could have prevented one death and 85 injuries, Hilliard said.

“This pulls the curtain back completely and proves GM has not been forthright,” Hilliard said.

Hilliard contends that Barra, who was head of product development and purchasing before becoming CEO, should have known about the purchase of 500,000 replacement switches at an unbudgeted cost of about $3 million.

“This completely reframes the conversation, the investigation and a re-examination of the truth of Ms. Barra’s involvement,” he said.

Barra has told Congress that she learned of the switch problem in late December and the recall on Jan. 31. Spokesman Alan Adler said Monday the company stands behind Barra’s original statements.

The parts were ordered a day after a committee of three GM executives met to consider a recall but decided that it didn’t have enough information to make a decision. According to Valukas’ report, the decision was delayed because then-Vice President of Engineering John Calabrese thought that company investigators didn’t know what was causing air bags not to inflate. Calabrese has since retired.

But Hilliard said the company wouldn’t order a half-million parts if it didn’t know the cause of a problem. Hilliard said he is seeking additional documents to see how high knowledge of the order went in the company’s hierarchy.

“This email chain creates more questions than it answers. It will be interesting to learn from the GM documents how high up it went, how far back it went,” he said.

GM would not comment on details of the emails but said in a statement that the emails are “further confirmation” that its system needed to be reformed, which it has done.

“We have reorganized our entire safety investigation and decision process and have more investigators, move issues more quickly and make decisions with better data,” the statement said.

Investigations are opened faster and a group of senior leaders quickly decides whether a recall is needed, the statement said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.