Mitsubishi has settled a major U.S. lawsuit stemming from a 2017 crash that left a Pennsylvania driver quadriplegic, ending a legal battle that once resulted in a jury award of approximately $1.01 billion. The settlement follows a successful appeal by the automaker, which overturned the original verdict and led to an order for a new trial. Mitsubishi has not disclosed the settlement amount and says the agreement does not constitute an admission of liability.

Mitsubishi Confirms Settlement in Major U.S. Lawsuit

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation confirmed that its U.S. subsidiary, Mitsubishi Motors North America (MMNA), reached a settlement last week, bringing the litigation to a close.

The company expects to record a loss related to the settlement in its consolidated financial results for the second quarter of its fiscal year ending March 31, 2027. However, Mitsubishi said the resolution is not expected to affect its consolidated earnings forecast.

The company’s announcement did not identify the vehicle involved in the case or reveal the settlement amount. A review of court records linked the litigation to a 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT and a crash that left its driver with life-changing injuries.

Mitsubishi also emphasized that the settlement does not constitute an admission of the plaintiffs’ allegations or liability by either Mitsubishi Motors Corporation or its U.S. subsidiary.

Why the $1.01 Billion Mitsubishi Verdict Was Overturned

The lawsuit was brought by Francis and Soomi Amagasu against Mitsubishi and other defendants over injuries Francis suffered in a crash nearly 10 years ago. After six years of litigation, a jury awarded the family approximately $1.01 billion, including compensatory damages and $800 million in punitive damages.

Mitsubishi challenged the judgment on appeal. Last year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial, citing an error in the original proceedings involving the crashworthiness doctrine.

The doctrine applies to cases in which an alleged vehicle defect did not cause the initial collision but may have contributed to the severity of the resulting injuries. Mitsubishi argued that jurors should have been instructed to consider whether the vehicle could have incorporated a safer alternative design and which injuries might have been prevented by such a design.

The appeals court agreed that the trial court’s failure to provide that instruction was an error requiring a new trial. The subsequent settlement resolves the dispute without the retrial ordered by the court.

2017 Mitsubishi 3000GT Crash Left Driver Quadriplegic

The crash occurred on November 11, 2017, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Francis Amagasu was driving a 1992 Mitsubishi 3000GT with his 14-year-old son, Katutoshi, in the passenger seat when he attempted to pass another vehicle and lost control.

The sports car left the road, struck three trees and rolled over. Francis was wearing a seat belt, but his head struck the roof during the rollover, fracturing his cervical spine and leaving him quadriplegic. His son sustained minor injuries.

Family Alleged Defects in Seat Belt and Roof Design

The Amagasu family argued that the Mitsubishi 3000GT’s occupant restraint system and roof configuration were defective. Their lawsuit focused in part on a rip-stitch feature in the seat belt that they alleged was designed to tear during a collision, adding approximately four inches of slack.

The family also pointed to the vehicle’s roughly three inches of head clearance. They argued that the additional seat belt slack, combined with the limited space between the driver’s head and the roof, contributed to the severity of Francis’ injuries.

The plaintiffs further alleged that the vehicle lacked adequate warnings about these risks. Those claims were allegations in the lawsuit, not findings established by the verdict that the appeals court overturned.

Settlement Ends Litigation Without an Admission of Liability

The settlement brings the Mitsubishi lawsuit to a close after the original $1.01 billion jury award was overturned and a new trial ordered. The agreement also resolves the case without publicly disclosing the amount Mitsubishi will pay.

Mitsubishi expects to recognize a related loss in the second quarter of its fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, but does not anticipate a change to its consolidated earnings forecast. The company maintains that the settlement does not constitute an admission of the plaintiffs’ allegations or liability.