CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Sacramento Takata Airbag Recall Lawyers

FREE EVALUATION (916) 777-7777

When people get in their cars they expect their seatbelts and airbags to protect them in an accident. When the seatbelts and airbags fail, even routine accidents can become disastrous. This catastrophic situation is precisely what millions of Americans are facing as they enter vehicles with defective airbags.

Over the last 18 months, auto companies have recalled more than 7 million vehicles that are suspected to have dangerous and defective Takata airbags installed. So far, at least eight deaths and more than 100 injuries have been attributed to Takata airbag failures.

Takata Corporation is a Japanese auto supplier that provides nearly 25% of the worlds airbag components. The company’s airbag inflators have a deadly defect where the inflation device can cause metal shrapnel to be released at a velocity that punctures the airbags and injures the face, neck, chest and torso of drivers and passengers in affected vehicles.

SETTLEMENT

$60,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit.

Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

A whistleblower case exposing fraudulent practices in the state of California resulted…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$8,000,000

Truck Accident

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young…
Learn More

JUDGEMENT

$3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck…
Learn More

Dangers of Takata Airbags

More than 14 million vehicles have been recalled worldwide due to Takata airbag defects. The number tops 7 million in the United States.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is advising all owners of vehicles with defective Takata airbags to replace them immediately.

The airbags are particularly dangerous for consumers who live and drive the cars in hot and humid regions. It is believed that the propellant in the airbags may be more likely to malfunction in these hotter regions located in the American South.

More than 14 million vehicles have been recalled worldwide due to Takata airbag defects…

The agency has stated that the exposure to high humidity and temperatures contributes to the likelihood that the airbag will rupture and send shrapnel into the bodies of the drivers and passengers. This does not mean, however, that drivers in cooler parts of the country are necessarily safe. All vehicles with defective Takata airbags presently pose a serious safety hazard.

While the lawsuits are looming, the NHTSA has also urged Takata to produce replacement airbag components at a much faster rate. The existing Takata airbags have defective parts that need to be replaced however, the sheer number of affected vehicles poses serious fulfillment problems for dealerships and auto manufacturers.

Can I File a Takata Recall Lawsuit?

At least two lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts arguing that the Takata Corporation and automakers failed to investigate the dangers in Takata airbags.

The lawsuits have been filed on behalf of all individuals who have been injured by defective airbags. According to the most recent reports, 4 people are alleged to have been fatally injured with more than 100 additional injuries.

As more and more people become aware of the injuries, these numbers are likely to grow. The lawsuits are seeking class action status so that they can represent the millions of Americans who have been affected by the defects.

Many consumers are worried that their cars have lost their resale value at an expedited rate and this is another aspect of the lawsuits.

Takata May Have Known the Bags Were Dangerous

A recent article in the New York Times carries serious allegations about what the company knew and when it knew it. Two former Takata employees have come forward to state that Takata knew the airbags were dangerous as far back as 2004. If that is true, then the information Takata has filed with the NHTSA stating that they discovered the airbag defects in 2009 would be wrong.

The former employees state that Takata tested 50 airbags retrieved from junkyards and was able to establish that the airbags were defective. However, the company did not share this data with the NHTSA and in fact, the former employees say they received instructions to delete all traces of the tests and the evidence from the company’s servers. If these allegations are true, Takata Corporation may face the biggest test of liability yet.

Arnold Law Firm Takata recall lawyers are currently helping owners who drive vehicles with defective Takata airbags evaluate their legal claims.

WE FIGHT FOR YOUR MAXIMUM INJURY COMPENSATION

Free Case Evaluation
CALL 916-777-7777

List of Recalled Vehicles

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a website where consumers can use a VIN to identify whether a car has been recalled. Also, the website www.nhtsa.gov provides updated information about recall announcements.

Manufacturers are required by law to provide recall information on their websites. Consumers simply need their Vehicle Identification Numbers and the website will reveal all of the associated recalls. Consumers will also be receiving recall notices via U.S. Postal Service with extensive details about the recall process.

The NHTSA has set up a safety hotline for consumers to discuss their concerns and ask questions at 1-885-327-4236. Consumers can also subscribe to the NHTSA’s Recall Notification Email System. The NHTSA has urged motorists to act quickly and prudently when they receive recall notices.

The following list of recalled vehicles is current as of 11/4/2014. Be sure to check with your car manufacturer and the NHTSA for the most up-to-date recall information.

BMW (click to expand)
  • 2000 2005 3 Series Sedan
  • 2000 2006 3 Series Coupe
  • 2000 2005 3 Series Sports Wagon
  • 2000 2006 3 Series Convertible
  • 2001 2006 M3 Coupe
  • 2001 2006 M3 Convertible
Chrysler
  • 2003 2008 Dodge Ram 1500
  • 2005 2008 Dodge Ram 2500
  • 2006 2008 Dodge Ram 3500
  • 2006 2008 Dodge Ram 4500
  • 2008 Dodge Ram 5500
  • 2005 2008 Dodge Durango
  • 2005 2008 Dodge Dakota
  • 2005 2008 Chrysler 300
  • 2007 2008 Chrysler Aspen
Ford
  • 2004 Ranger
  • 2005 2006 GT
  • 2005 2007 Mustang
General Motors (GM)
  • 2003 2005 Pontiac Vibe
  • 2005 Saab 9-2X
Honda
  • 2001 2007 Honda Accord)
  • 2001 2002 Honda Accord
  • 2001 2005 Honda Civic
  • 2002 2006 Honda CR-V
  • 2003 2011 Honda Element
  • 2002 2004 Honda Odyssey
  • 2003 2007 Honda Pilot
  • 2006 Honda Ridgeline
  • 2003 2006 Acura MDX
  • 2002 2003 Acura TL/CL
  • 2005 Acura RL
Mazda
  • 2003 2007 Mazda6
  • 2006 2007 MazdaSpeed6
  • 2004 2008 Mazda RX-8
  • 2004 2005 MPV
  • 2004 B-Series Truck
Mitsubishi
  • 2004 2005 Lancer
  • 2006 2007 Raider
Nissan
  • 2001 2003 Nissan Maxima
  • 2001 2004 Nissan Pathfinder
  • 2002 2004 Nissan Sentra
  • 2001 2004 Infiniti I30/I35
  • 2002 2003 Infiniti QX4
  • 2003 2005 Infiniti FX35/FX45
Subaru
  • 2003 2005 Baja
  • 2003 2005 Legacy
  • 2003 2005 Outback
  • 2004 2005 Impreza
Toyota
  • 2002 2005 Lexus SC
  • 2002 2005 Toyota Corolla
  • 2003 2005 Toyota Corolla Matrix
  • 2002 2005 Toyota Sequoia
  • 2003 2005 Toyota Tundra

Sacramento Takata Recall Lawyers

If you have been injured in an accident where the Takata airbag caused you additional harms or failed to deploy, you may have multiple legal claims. You may have an individual injury claim against the other driver and/or against the company that owned the other vehicle. You may also have class action lawsuit claims against your auto manufacturer and against Takata Corporation.

Depending on the circumstances of your injuries, you need a law firm with aggressive product safety lawyers who have the experience and capabilities to handle all aspects of your legal claims.

At Arnold Law Firm, our Sacramento recall and product safety lawyers have been successfully handling individual and class action lawsuits at the state and federal level for decades. Let us put our extensive experience to work for you.

LATEST NEWS

Treble Damages in California Trucking Cases

justice4you January 30, 2026

California law provides a specific statutory remedy for victims injured by impaired commercial vehicle drivers when their employers fail to meet federal safety requirements. Understanding when treble damages apply—and how they differ from standard punitive damages—is crucial for truck accident victims seeking maximum compensation. What Are Treble Damages? Treble damages allow injured parties to recover three times their actual damages under specific legal circumstances. In California trucking cases, this remedy is narrowly defined and differs significantly from general punitive damages available in other personal injury cases. California Civil Code § 3333.7: Statutory Treble Damages Requirements for Recovery Under California Civil Code § 3333.7, injured parties may recover treble damages from a commercial motor vehicle driver’s employer when all of the

California Trucking Accidents: Standards of Care

justice4you January 29, 2026

California law establishes different standards of care for trucking operations depending on the type of service provided. While most commercial trucking companies transporting freight are subject to ordinary negligence standards, federal motor carrier safety regulations impose enhanced duties that can significantly affect liability in truck accident cases. Key Takeaways: Commercial carriers of goods generally DO NOT have the duty of “utmost care” Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) DO create heightened standards in specific situations Large truck drivers must exercise greater caution than ordinary motorists Licensed motor carriers have nondelegable safety duties Common Carrier Standard: When Does “Utmost Care” Apply? The Enhanced Duty for Passenger Transportation California Civil Code section 2100 requires carriers of persons for reward to use “the

Punitive Damages in California Personal Injury Cases

justice4you January 28, 2026

What Are Punitive Damages? Punitive damages are extra money a court can order a wrongdoer to pay, on top of the money that compensates an injured person for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The main goal of punitive damages is not to repay the victim, but to punish especially bad behavior and to discourage similar conduct in the future. Think of punitive damages as a financial penalty for conduct that is much worse than ordinary carelessness. In California, punitive damages are not common. They are reserved for cases where the defendant’s conduct is particularly harmful, intentional, or shows a conscious disregard for the safety or rights of others. Most personal injury cases involve simple negligence (for example,

Settlement - $3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of $3.9 million, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay. This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendants $1,000,000 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresentations when applying for that policy. Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent. The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits.

Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011 in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandt’s case. A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts favor. After four years of fighting for what is right, the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

Settlement - $8,000,000

Truck Accident

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young mother of three. She was calling from the hospital where her husband Christopher had been air-lifted for treatment of severe injuries from a tragic motor vehicle accident earlier that day. Angela’s mother, a past client of our firm, had encouraged her to give us a call.

As it turns out, Angela’s prompt contact with us was a very important decision for their family. Immediate representation allowed our team to secure critical evidence right away — appropriate storage and analysis of the vehicle to avoid tampering, timely professional photography of the scene, and interviews of involved parties — which ended up being imperative to the details of Christopher’s case.

A commercial vehicle had failed to stop at a rural stop-sign intersection, colliding with the compact sedan driven by Christopher, an active 33-year-old father. The impact caused extensive damage to his spinal cord in the cervical area. Despite multiple surgeries, rehabilitation programs for physical and psychological therapy, and in-home care, his injuries rendered him a paraplegic, paralyzed from the mid-chest. In an instant, life as he had known it was gone forever.

At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver of the commercial vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with a large corporation. With the employer being directly liable, as such, defense counsel fought hard to minimize Christopher’s damages, claiming that his being unemployed at that time devalued his losses. Our legal team made sure Christopher’s true losses were represented, including his potential income, his options and mobility, his ability to provide for and support his family, and the lifetime of care he now needed. Christopher’s injuries also dramatically affected his spouse’s daily life, resulting in a claim on her behalf.

Furthermore, the extent of Christopher’s injuries were, in part, due to defects involving the dual-restraint system in his own vehicle. Despite the manufacturer’s efforts to deny any responsibility, the Arnold Law Firm established negligence relevant to his case.

The result was a settlement of $8 million — the largest pre-trial settlement for this type of case in the region. Christopher now has the resources to receive the ongoing care he now requires, improve the quality of his life and take care of his young family.

Verdict - $10,200,000

Motorcycle Accident

The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

Settlement - $17,000,000

Data Breach

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

Settlement - $18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Settlement - $60,000,000

Data Breach

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.