Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, CLASS ACTIONS AND MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION—MOTOR VEHICLES—E.D. Mich.: LG Electronics loses bid to pull attorney fees out of settlement fund, (Sep 24, 2026)

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

A law firm that had filed separate lawsuits against the battery company and did not materially contribute to the settlement agreement could not recover attorney fees from the negotiated settlement fund.

Under federal procedural rules, governing case law, and the terms of a settlement agreement, a law firm that had not worked with the class counsel to negotiate the agreement between electronic vehicle owners and General Motors and a group of companies including LG Electronics, Inc. concerning a putative defect in the car batteries could not recover attorney fees from the funds allocated to a second distribution to class members, a federal district court in Michigan ruled, denying the motion (In re Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery Litigation, No. 2:20-CV-13256-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2026)).

Background. LG Chem, LTD, LG Energy Solution, LTD, LG Energy Solution Michigan Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics USA, Inc. (collectively, the LG companies) were named in a products liability lawsuit with General Motors LLC by a putative class of Chevrolet Bolt electronic vehicle (EV) owners. The owners alleged that the battery system in model years 2017-2022 would overheat when fully or close to being fully charged to the degree of being a fire risk.

In the following years, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations amid the litigation and, after almost four years, reached a class-wide settlement. The EV owners did not oppose the motion submitted to the court, which approved the preliminary agreement in September 2024 after the hearing in July 2024.

Preliminary agreement. General Motors and the LG companies agreed to pay $150 million to a common settlement fund, representing member claim awards, attorney fees, and expenses. The agreement outlined two distributions. The first distribution would be an amount to class members depending upon if they had received a battery replacement award or a software final remedy, service awards to the named plaintiffs, and class counsel attorney fees and expenses. The second distribution would be a pro rata distribution to class members who had submitted valid and timely claims of the remaining funds.

Opt-out and opt-in members. A law firm representing others impacted by the same battery issue had filed lawsuits in state and federal courts alongside those of the class counsel. A month after the preliminary settlement hearing, the law firm filed a motion requesting permission to allow unidentified class members represented by the firm to electronically opt out of the class in order to pursue individual claims against General Motors and the LG companies.

The motion was denied in October 2024. The law firm’s clients thereafter opted out of the settlement class and filed separate lawsuits premised on the same alleged battery defect.

However, beginning on October 2025, the law firm’s attorney joined in mediation with General Motors and the LG companies. They agreed to a resolution in which the clients could rejoin the settlement class by opting-in in exchange for dismissing the pending lawsuits. Class counsel agreed to provide the law firm and the defendants 90 days before the final approval order to negotiate and 90 days after the final order was entered to submit a claim in line with the settlement agreement.

In December 2025, final approval of the class action settlement was granted, along with the class members’ motion for attorney fees, expenses, and service awards. According to the agreement, class counsel could recover 35 percent of the settlement amount, roughly $50 million.

LG companies’ motion. The LG companies filed the present motion independent from General Motors to award $2.5 million in attorney fees to the law firm representing the opted-out and opted-back-in parties. The battery company argued that these new class members increased the class size by five percent, and that five percent of the attorney fees and costs, $2.5 million, should be taken from the funds left over for the secondary distribution. The original class opposed the motion, contending that it would alter the original settlement agreement and “reward [the law firm] for leveraging opt outs to extract fees from the Settlement Fund.”

Analysis. In consideration of federal procedural rules governing class actions and applicable jurisprudence, the court winnowed its analysis to whether the law firm had provided substantial and independent benefits to the settlement in order to be entitled to an award from the common fund. The court concluded that the law firm had not.

First, the court found that the law firm had not materially been involved in the core lawsuit and, thus, had not provided any independent value to the settlement class members. Specifically, the court explained that the law firm had not participated in any way with the class counsel, did not participate in the negotiations leading to the settlement agreement, did nothing to increase the size of the settlement fund, and did nothing to improve the terms of the settlement. Case law provided abundant examples of similar situations.

The court highlighted the fact that the law firm initially encouraged potential class members to opt out of the settlement, only advising them to opt back in once the distribution amount substantially increased. Applicable legal precedent requires that attorneys “whose efforts create, discover, increase, or preserve” the class’s award merit compensation. The separate lawsuit filings were not sufficient to earn attorney fees in the case at bar.

In addition to providing distinguishable case law, the LG companies’ assertion that the law firm had increased the size of the settlement class was of no value because there was no independent benefit resulting from the law firm’s actions.

Further, the request to extract the attorney fees from the second distribution amount would be an impermissible alteration to the settlement agreement. The terms of the second distribution do not account for attorney fees, nor is there any text in the agreement permitting fees to non-class counsel. The rationale behind pulling the attorney fees from the second distribution would also create a fairness issue vis-a-vis the pro rata distributions to the class members. Because the law firm was not entitled to attorney fees under the terms of the settlement agreement or any legal precedent, the LG companies’ motion was denied.

The case is No. 2:20-CV-13256-TGB-CI.

Judge: Berg, T.

Attorneys: Brian M. Saxe (The Miller Law Firm, PC) for Robin Altobelli. Elisabeth M. Anderson (Mayer Brown LLP) for General Motors LLC.

Companies: General Motors LLC

MainStory: TopStory ClassActLitigationNews MotorVehiclesNews MichiganNews