Feds To Fine Fiat Chrysler Automobiles $70M For Under-reporting Death, Injuries

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole
feds to fine fiat chrysler automobiles 70m for under reporting death injuries

Federal regulators Thursday fined Fiat Chrysler Automobiles $70 million for under-reporting death and injury claims from vehicles as far back as 2003, officials announced in a statement. The fine is related to a September announcement from the automaker to the Transportation Department that the automaker had violated terms of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act.

The automaker issued a statement saying it would accept the penalty and agree to a consent order that would require FCA to submit crash data from the cars.

“FCA US LLC accepts these penalties and is revising its processes to ensure regulatory compliance. However, FCA US is confident that it identified and addressed all issues that arose during the relevant time period, using alternate data sources,” the company said in a statement.

In its Consent Order with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, FCA acknowledged that it had under reported the death and injury claims, but said that in large part, coding errors in its Early Warning Reporting system led to its failure to report claims to regulators.

By adding new brands to the automaker’s fold, the EWR system failed to accurately report crashes, according to the filing:

… Specifically, FCA US acknowledges that it did not report these death and injury incidents, in large part, because: 1) FCA US failed to report certain incidents due to coding problems in its EWR system that failed to recognize when reportable information was received or updated and, as a result, failed to report certain incidents to NHTSA; and 2) FCA US did not update its EWR system to reflect new FCA US brands.

Earlier this year, NHTSA fined Honda $70 million for similar violations of the TREAD Act.

“Today’s announcement sends a very clear message to the entire industry that manufacturers have responsibility for the complete and timely reporting of this critical safety information,” NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind said in January. “The actions we are requiring will push Honda to significantly raise the bar on the effectiveness of its (early warning reporting) program. Our ongoing oversight will ensure compliance and determine if there is cause for additional actions.”

The $70 million fine for FCA follows a $105 million fine by safety officials in July for botched recalls of nearly two dozen models of its vehicles that affected millions of cars.

Join the conversation
2 of 3 comments
  • Callmeishmael Callmeishmael on Dec 10, 2015

    Of all the brands that one might want to reinstate in the US I can think of few worse choices than FIAT. I say this as someone who owned and drove three of the frog eye FIAT 500s, a FIAT 600 sedan and a FIAT 1100 TV. Fairly or not, the brand came to stand for tiny, unreliable cars. Remember "Fix It Again, Tony"? To come back to the US with another tiny, unreliable car seems imprudent at best.

  • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Dec 10, 2015

    @CoryDL - "-Does not make reliable things (save their trucks)." You need to remove the "save their trucks" part. They finally broke top 3 JD Power for 1/2 tons but Consumer Reports once again said that Ram trucks failed to make it onto their "Recommended" list. University of Michigan did a study on return on investment for diesel powered vehicles. Dodge/Ram trucks had the poorest ROI. The thing that makes that fact even more bitter for Dodge/Ram is the fact that the study was done over the time frame when Ford was selling the infamous 6.0 Power Stroke.

  • Probert Sorry to disappoint: https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/tesla-model-y-worlds-best-selling-vehicle-1234848318/and any list. of articles with a 1 second google search. It's a tough world out there - but you can do it!!!!!!
  • ToolGuy "We're marking the anniversary of the time Robert Farago started the GM death watch and called for the company to die."• No, we aren't. Robert Farago wrote that in April 2005. It was reposted in 2009 on the eve of the actual bankruptcy filing.The byline dates are sometimes strange/off with the site revisions (and the 'this is a repost' note got lost), but the date string in the link is correct (...2005/04...). Posting about GM bankruptcy in 2005 was a slightly more difficult call than doing it in 2009.-- The Truth About Calendars
  • Kat Laneaux Agree with Michael500, we wasted all that money just to bail out GM and they are developing these cars in China and other countries. What the heck. I understand the cheap labor but that is just another foothold the government has on their citizens and they already treat them like crap. That is pretty disgusting to go forward to put other peoples health and mental stability on a crazy crazed, control freak, leader, who is in bed with Russia. Thought about getting a buick but that just shot that one out of the park. All of this for the greed. They get what they lay in bed with. Disgusting.
  • Michael500 Good thing Obama used $50 billion of taxpayer money to bail them out and give unions a big stake. GM is headed to BK again with their Hail Mary hope of EVs. Hopefully a Republican in office will let them go BK the next time, and it's coming. The US economy is not related/dependent on GM and their Chinese made Buicks.
  • MaintenanceCosts "Rural areas hardly noticed COVID at all."I very much doubt that is true in places like the Navajo Nation or the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, some of which lost 2% or more of their population to COVID.No city had a death rate in the same order of magnitude.Low-density living is a very modern invention. Before cars, people, even in agricultural areas, needed to live densely to survive.