This class action claims that Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid plug-in minivans can catch fire — even parked or charging — and that the recall meant to fix the problem fell short. Owners are seeking relief up to a buyback, and a court has let the case proceed for consumers in 18 states.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a consumer class action. The claims about the Pacifica Hybrid's fire risk and the adequacy of the recall are unproven allegations. Stellantis (FCA) disputes the allegations, the case has not been decided, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
The Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) minivan. After reports of vehicles catching fire — including while parked or charging — the manufacturer issued recalls covering roughly 67,000 Pacifica Hybrids from about the 2017 to 2023 model years, first through a voluntary action and then an expanded recall. Owners filed a class action alleging that the minivans have a fire-related defect and that the recall remedy, largely a software update, did not fully resolve the danger.The federal cases were consolidated into MDL No. 3040, In re: Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation, in the Eastern District of Michigan (assigned to U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson). This is primarily an economic-loss case — owners argue the vehicles are worth less and want remedies up to a buyback. Stellantis, the parent of the former Fiat Chrysler (FCA), disputes the allegations.
The Alleged Defect and the Recall
The core allegation is that the Pacifica Hybrid's high-voltage system can, in some vehicles, lead to a fire risk that is present even when the minivan is turned off and parked or charging — which is why owners were told at points to park away from structures and other vehicles. Plaintiffs allege that the recall remedy did not eliminate the hazard, pointing to reports that some vehicles experienced fires after receiving the update. The manufacturer maintains that it addressed the issue through the recall. Whether the remedy was adequate is disputed and has not been decided.The most reliable way for an owner to know whether a particular Pacifica has an open recall is to enter its VIN on NHTSA's free recall lookup, rather than relying on a general model-year list.
Where the Litigation Stands in 2026
The court ruled on the manufacturer's motion to dismiss, ending the case as a single nationwide class but allowing it to move forward on behalf of consumers in 18 states — a common outcome in auto-defect class actions, where differences in state consumer-protection and warranty laws often prevent one nationwide class. As of mid-2026 there was no settlement and no public claim form. For how this case compares with other product-defect litigation, see our MDL tracker.Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid lawsuit allege?
The class action alleges that certain model-year Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid plug-in minivans have a defect that can cause them to catch fire, including while parked or charging, and that the manufacturer's recall remedy did not fully fix the risk. Owners seek relief including a buyback of affected vehicles. These are unproven allegations; the manufacturer disputes them.
Which Pacifica minivans are involved?
The litigation concerns Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid (plug-in) minivans from roughly the 2017 to 2023 model years — the vehicles covered by the fire-risk recall of about 67,000 minivans. Owners can confirm whether a specific vehicle has an open recall by entering its VIN on NHTSA's free recall lookup.
What is the status of the case in 2026?
The consolidated cases are in MDL 3040 in the Eastern District of Michigan. The court granted part of the manufacturer's motion to dismiss, ending the case as a single nationwide class but allowing it to proceed on behalf of consumers in 18 states. There is no settlement and no public claim form as of 2026.
Is this a personal-injury case?
No. This is primarily an economic-loss consumer class action — owners allege the vehicles are worth less and that the recall remedy was inadequate. It is separate from any individual personal-injury claim arising from a specific fire, which would be handled on its own facts.
Sources
• U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — MDL 3040 statistics and docket, jpml.uscourts.gov• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — Pacifica Hybrid recall information and VIN lookup, nhtsa.gov/recalls
• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan — In re: Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation, MDL 3040, mied.uscourts.gov
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
