Quantcast

EOTech sued over alleged defects in combat optical sights

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Thursday, December 19, 2024

EOTech sued over alleged defects in combat optical sights

Lawyer

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (Legal Newsline) – A Missouri man is suing weapon accessories manufacturers over alleged defects in their combat optical sights.

Andrew Tyler Foster, individually and for all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit Dec. 4 in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division against L-3 Communications EOTech and L-3 Communications Corp., alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, strict products liability and breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

The suit states the defendants sold combat optical sights to consumers throughout the U.S. The combat optical sights are mounted on weapons and are used to engage targets in a range of environmental conditions.

However, the suit states, the sights are materially defective. Furthermore, according to the suit, the defendants became aware, around 2006, that design defects in the sights caused them to fail in cold temperatures and humid environments.

The defendants failed to disclose these defects and instead represented that their sights performed in humid conditions and in temperatures ranging from 40 below zero to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, even though the sights experienced "thermal drift," meaning their point of aim differed from point of impact, when subjected to hot or cold temperatures, according to the suit.

The defendants only updated their website and marketing materials to warn consumers of these and other defects after they settled a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government for $25.6 million.

However, after further testing and manufacturing, the defendants pitched new sights as an "upgrade" to a quality product that conformed to specifications, the suit claims.

Foster and others in the class seek damages of more than $5 million. They are represented by attorneys Craig R. Heidemann and Nathan A. Duncan of Douglas Haun & Heidemann in Springfield, Missouri.

U.S. District Court of the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division Case number 6:15-CV-03519-BCW

More News