Skip to content

Battery Recalls – Making a Bad Situation Worse in the Automotive Industry

October 11, 2021

Contract obligations often clarify responsibility, but multiple competing obligations can represent a new level of challenges. All manufacturers and services providers want to keep their clients happy and bring in new clients, but these interests can put a strain on existing agreements. A case in point is dealing with recalls when there is already a supply shortage of essential parts as in the automotive industry.

Computer chip shortages have been impacting a wide range of industries, but they are not the only shortages facing automakers. Electric vehicles rely on chemical batteries to store energy as a substitute for hydrocarbon fuels used in internal combustion engines. Many of the newer batteries are based on lithium-ion technology similar to the batteries found in modern smartphones. A recent recall by General Motors, out of an abundance of caution, has implications for the electric vehicle supply chain. The recall was due to a fire risk in the battery packs of Chevy Bolt electric vehicles. Replacement of the batteries for customers presents at least two problems – the supply shortage in battery materials and reduction in production capacity while conducting the recall.

When a vehicle is recalled, it often requires one or more replacement parts. If the replacement parts are also being used in current production vehicles, then every recalled vehicle reduces the parts supply for producing another vehicle that is compatible with that same part. If the replacement part is not being used on current production vehicles, then the production of replacement parts may take up capacity that would have otherwise been used for current production parts. In this instance, the replacement part is a battery pack. Not only does General Motors face a demand for replacement parts for the Chevy Bolt in order to get its customers back on the road, but General Motors’ new line up of electronic vehicles are planned to use different battery technology, which means that two different sets of battery packs need to be produced in order to satisfy the demands of the recalled vehicles and new production units.

At one level or another, the automaker is challenged to balance the market demand for new vehicles and obligations to owners of current vehicles subject to the recall.

These stresses on the supply chain give reasons for automakers to take a closer look at their legal obligations and supply contracts for addressing widespread shortages. What can be done if a link in the chain cannot handle the additional strain of a recall? Do the contracts address a process for addressing a shortfall in the sourcing of essential parts? What are the safeguards provided for in the supply contracts if the strain results in the insolvency of one of the vendors central or ancillary to the recall?  These considerations and more should be addressed whenever a supply contract is drafted or renewed.

The ability to influence supply and take advantage of alternatives is paramount. Automakers with the flexibility to balance existing customer obligations and new customer demands will have far greater staying power in a market where shortages are the new normal.

The views and opinions expressed in the article represent the view of the author and not necessarily the official view of Clark Hill PLC. Nothing in this article constitutes professional legal advice nor is intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice. 

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Event

Clark Hill's Commercial Real Estate Symposium – Dallas, Texas

Join Clark Hill’s Commercial Real Estate attorneys and industry professionals for a timely and dynamic program in Dallas, focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the CRE industry.

Explore more
Legal Updates

What Is Likely the Weakest Provision in Your Multi-State Lease?

Using one eminent domain lease clause across states risks lost value. Learn how state laws should reflect notice and just compensation for better protection.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Critical Risk Mitigation Provisions for Design Contracts — Part 1: Waiver of Consequential Damages

An essential element of architect and engineer contracts with their clients is the treatment of risk sharing between the parties. Design professionals who are typically simply providing services for a fee, and who are not investors who will share in the profits of a successful project, can ill-afford to expose themselves to unlimited liability for negligent errors and omissions in the performance of their services. Architects and engineers would argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expose them to unlimited downside risk when they do not directly participate in the upside profit potential of the projects they design. Owners and developers would counter that this is why design professionals carry professional liability insurance. But even simple design errors can lead to liability that is many times greater than the amount of such insurance.

Explore more