- Land Rover owners are taking legal action over allegedly fragile glass
- One driver claims their Defender went though seven busted windshields
- A similar attempt to bring this issue to court was tried two years ago
Replacing a windshield can be an annoyance at best, assuming the thing is covered through one’s comprehensive insurance. If not, it can turn into an expensive and unexpected bill. Some owners of late-model Land Rover Defender SUVs are alleging a design problem with the rig is causing windshields to spontaneously shatter or turn into a spider web of cracks after just the slightest of impacts with road debris.
With that type of allegation, you know a lawsuit isn’t far behind. According to litigation filed in mid-September, a trio of Defender owners (in opposition to JLR, the Defender-ants?) are bringing a class-action suit against the automaker on behalf of themselves and anyone else similarly impacted who wishes to join the fray.
Examples in the suit run the gamut, from complaints about windshields popping after just a few days of ownership; to being ruined by a “small pebble.” Given the marketing behind vehicles like the Defender, which promote a rugged type of image, fragile windows don’t exactly fit the persona of a tough 4×4. Some plaintiffs are claiming expenses running in excess of $4,500 after losing two windshields in short order after the OEM unit gave up the ghost less than two years after purchase.
Certainly, rumours and stories abound on fan sites like reddit and model-specific forums or Facebook groups. One user on reddit claims to be on their seventh windshield, a statistic usually enjoyed by people traversing the Dempster Highway instead of folks using an SUV in largely urban environs. It doesn’t help that highway laws in some areas prohibit driving with a busted windshield.
The plaintiffs may be in for a fight. It seems this issue was brought to court a couple of years ago, with owners then suggesting the alleged problem resulted from deficient materials being used in the construction of the windshield, or a deficiency in the structure of the vehicle itself. Citing a lack of specific defect identification, among other arguments, JLR argued the claim should be dismissed — which is exactly what happened. Perhaps the case will be heard differently this time around.
Sign up for our newsletter Blind-Spot Monitor and follow our social channels on X, Tiktok and LinkedIn to stay up to date on the latest automotive news, reviews, car culture, and vehicle shopping advice.