GM 5.3L V8 Engine Lawsuit and $150 Million Settlement

General Motors has agreed to a $150 million GM 5.3L V8 engine settlement resolving claims that the LC9 Vortec 5300 engine in certain 2011–2014 Chevrolet and GMC trucks and SUVs burned oil at an abnormal rate because of a defective piston assembly. A federal judge granted final approval on October 8, 2025, and eligible owners and lessees in California, Idaho, and North Carolina are receiving about $3,380 per vehicle. A separate Oklahoma settlement of roughly $24.9 million pays about $700 per class member for the same defect. Payments began December 23, 2025.

Which Vehicles Are Covered

The settlement covers 2011–2014 model year vehicles equipped with the Generation IV LC9 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 engine, manufactured on or after February 10, 2011. The specific models are:¹

Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, and Tahoe (2011–2014)
GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL (2011–2014)

Vehicles that already received upgraded piston rings under warranty at no cost are excluded from the class. The $150 million fund is limited to owners and lessees who bought or leased their vehicle in California, North Carolina, or Idaho. Oklahoma owners are covered under the separate Hampton settlement described below. Owners in other states are not part of either settlement.¹

What the Defect Involved

The lawsuit alleged that the LC9’s piston rings lacked enough tension to keep oil sealed inside the crankcase, allowing it to leak into the combustion chamber and burn off during normal driving. Owners reported consuming a quart of oil every 2,000 miles or less. The oil loss fouled spark plugs, caused misfires and rough idling, and in severe cases led to permanent engine damage including bent pushrods and broken connecting rods.²

Two other systems made the problem worse, according to plaintiffs. GM’s Active Fuel Management system sprayed oil onto the piston skirts through a pressurized relief valve, and the Positive Crankcase Ventilation system pulled oil from the valve train into the intake manifold, where it was drawn into the combustion chamber and burned. Meanwhile, the oil life monitor measured oil quality by temperature and engine revolutions, not actual oil level, so drivers got no warning until the engine was already starved.³²

GM denied that any defect existed and denied all allegations of wrongdoing throughout the litigation.¹

How Much You Get and When Payments Arrive

After attorneys’ fees and administrative costs were deducted from the $150 million fund, the pro rata per-vehicle payout came to approximately $3,380. That was higher than the originally estimated minimum of $2,149 and exceeded the $2,700 per-vehicle damages figure the jury had awarded at trial. The three named plaintiffs each received $30,000 service awards.⁴

Payments to class members who submitted a W-9 form began December 23, 2025. Payments to those who did not submit a W-9 began January 9, 2026.¹

The court awarded $57 million in attorneys’ fees to class counsel, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles and DiCello Levitt, representing 37% of the total fund. Judge Chen approved the higher-than-usual percentage on the basis that class counsel took the case through a full jury trial and obtained a settlement worth 122% of the jury’s verdict.⁵

Do You Need to File a Claim

For most class members, no claim form was required. The one exception was North Carolina class members who received a specific identification notice; those recipients had to submit a form by September 15, 2025. All settlement deadlines have now passed, and the case is in its distribution phase.⁶

Class members with questions about their payment status can contact the settlement administrator at info@GMEngineLitigation.com or call 1-888-307-8239.⁶

The Separate Oklahoma Settlement

Oklahoma owners are covered by a separate case, Hampton v. General Motors LLC (Case No. 6:21-cv-250-GLJ) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Judge Gerald L. Jackson granted final approval on September 15, 2025, to a settlement fund of approximately $24.8 million covering the same LC9-equipped vehicles.⁷

After deducting attorneys’ fees of nearly $9.5 million, a $250,000 administrative cap, and a $15,000 service award for named plaintiff Durwin Hampton, eligible Oklahoma class members received approximately $700 each. Payments followed the same schedule as the three-state settlement, beginning December 23, 2025. The smaller per-person figure reflects a smaller class and the fact that the Oklahoma case settled without going to trial.⁷⁸

How the Case Reached Settlement

The main lawsuit, Siqueiros et al. v. General Motors, LLC (Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC), was filed in 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Edward M. Chen. The court certified three state-specific classes for California, North Carolina, and Idaho. The case went to a three-week jury trial in September and October 2022.¹

The jury found for the plaintiffs on every claim, including breach of implied warranty under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability under North Carolina law, and violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. It awarded $2,700 per class vehicle. In June 2023, Judge Chen denied GM’s motions to overturn the verdict and decertify the classes, finding that plaintiffs had presented “substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of a classwide defect.” Before judgment was entered, the parties agreed to the $150 million settlement to avoid further appeals.⁹

Out of nearly 43,000 class members who received notice, not a single objection was filed. Judge Chen called that a “rare and powerful endorsement of the settlement’s fairness.”⁵

Other GM V8 Engine Lawsuits Still Active

The 5.3L LC9 oil consumption case is closed, but two separate GM V8 engine lawsuits remain in litigation. If you own a newer truck or SUV or a different engine, these may be the cases to watch.

AFM/DFM Lifter Failure

Harrison et al. v. General Motors LLC (Case No. 2:21-cv-12927), filed in December 2021 in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleges that Active Fuel Management and Dynamic Fuel Management systems in 2014-and-newer GM vehicles with 5.3L, 6.0L, and 6.2L V8 engines cause lifter failures leading to power loss, misfiring, and stalling. In March 2026, Judge Laurie J. Michelson denied a motion to split the case into separate AFM and DFM proceedings. No class has been certified and no trial date has been set.¹⁰¹¹

L87 6.2L V8 Sudden Engine Failure

Eleven lawsuits filed throughout 2025 over the 6.2-liter L87 V8 were consolidated into Rittereiser et al. v. General Motors, LLC (Case No. 4:25-cv-11481) in Michigan, with a consolidated complaint filed February 26, 2026. The case covers more than 877,000 vehicles: 2019–2024 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500, and 2021–2024 Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, and Escalade ESV. Plaintiffs allege a manufacturing defect in the connecting rod bearings and crankshaft components causes catastrophic engine failure, sometimes at highway speeds.¹²¹³

GM recalled nearly 598,000 of these vehicles in April 2025. NHTSA opened an engineering analysis in October 2025 and a follow-up query in January 2026 after receiving 36 reports of post-recall engine failures.¹⁴ As of June 2026, GM is seeking dismissal of the consolidated L87 lawsuit, arguing that the recall and an extended 10-year, 150,000-mile warranty program have addressed the problem.¹⁵

1
GM Engine Litigation. Siqueiros v. General Motors Settlement
2
ChevroletProblems.com. Vortec Oil Consumption
3
ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines Plagued by Abnormal Oil Consumption
4
Carscoops. Judge Approves 57 Million for Lawyers While GM V8 Owners Get 3380
5
Beasley Allen. The Road to Justice: 150 Million GM Engine Defect Settlement Approved
6
GM Engine Litigation FAQ. Siqueiros Settlement FAQ
7
Oklahoma GM Engine Litigation. Hampton v. General Motors Settlement
8
GM Authority. Oklahoma GM 5.3L V8 Engine Lawsuit Gets Settlement Approval
9
Justia. Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC, Order on Post-Trial Motions
10
GM Lifter Lawsuit. Harrison v. General Motors Lifter Lawsuit
11
Pickup Truck Talk. Federal Judge Denies Motion to Split GM Lifter Lawsuit Over AFM DFM
12
Hagens Berman. General Motors L87 Motor Engine Failure Defect
13
Carscoops. GM Now Faces One Massive Lawsuit Over Claims Its V8 Can Suddenly Seize
14
Ward’s Auto. NHTSA Opens Investigation GM Engine Failures Prior Recall
15
GM Authority. GM Seeking to Get L87 Engine Lawsuit Dismissed