SEATTLE, Wash. (BRAIN) — The judge in a product liability case over a Specialized e-MTB’s alleged “over-run” refused to enforce a proposed $175,000 settlement, which fell apart when Specialized demanded the return of the bike.
Washington resident Steve Ruggiero sued Specialized last year, claiming he was injured because his 2022 Turbo Levo SF accelerated unexpectedly while he was riding on a trail in Oregon in June 2025. Ruggiero’s suit charges that Specialized was aware that the bike can accelerate this way, which e-MTB enthusiasts call “over-run.”
“Ruggiero had been riding his Turbo Levo at a pedestrian gait on nearly level ground, and the next thing he knew he had been tomahawked into the side of the hill hard enough to break his ribs (as he later learned),” the suit claims. The suit said Ruggiero, who was 65 at the time of the crash, broke seven ribs.
The complaint quotes social media comments going back to 2017, with Specialized e-MTB owners mentioning over-run concerns. Some of the commenters said they reached out to Specialized or their dealer about the problem.
Some e-MTB motor systems offer over-run as a feature, usually allowing the motor to continue to power the wheel for a second or two after pedaling stops, to allow the rider to get up and over an obstacle. It's not clear from the description of Ruggiero's crash in his complaint whether he was coasting or had pedaled just before or during the alleged acceleration.
The complaint describes the crash this way:
"Ruggiero had come down a steep hill in Eco mode, then decelerated to traverse a long flat section of loose shale which kept the overall speed down. He was riding on an approximately 4 degree downslope laterally, moving at under 10 mph on a trail about three feet wide.
"Once beyond the loose shale, the rear wheel hit the perfect loam that Oakridge is famous for.
"Almost immediately, the rear wheel spun out, due to the manufacturing flaw Specialized had incorporated into the bike.
"The rear wheel swung hard to the right, driving Ruggiero into the 45 degree slope to his left.
"Luckily for Ruggiero, the brutal run out pushed him left, because the down slope to the right was also a 45 degree slope, with a long, exposed fall line.
"Instead, he was slammed into the steep wall to his left."
Specialized has declined to comment on the case, but answered Ruggiero’s amended complaint in March, denying his claims and presenting affirmative defenses including rider error and unauthorized modifications to the bike. A jury trial date was set for March 2027.
Some settling may occur.
According to court filings, after some back and forth, on April 27 Ruggiero agreed to a settlement calling for Specialized to pay him $175,000. After Ruggiero’s attorney emailed Specialized’s attorney that the offer was accepted, Specialized’s attorney responded minutes later, “Great. We will get it done. Look for a draft (of the settlement agreement) in the next day or two.”
Specialized’s attorney sent another email a few minutes later, saying, “By the way, we are going to need the bike returned to us as part of the settlement. I think he will be able to afford a new one now, but please let me know ASAP if that is a problem.”
Ruggiero’s side responded that Ruggiero had sold the bike to a friend and would not return it.
Specialized’s attorney responded that the bike should have been kept and available for inspection prior to a trial, and was now “spoiled” as evidence if the case went to trial.
“Not good,” Specialized's attorney responded by email. “He sold his friend the allegedly defective bike? Interesting. It is also a spoliation of evidence. Once you filed suit, you and your client had a duty to preserve the bike.”
Ruggiero’s counsel responded two minutes later: “It is not spoliation, we have it; we just aren’t giving it back to you. You can fly up and look at it right now if you want … “
Four minutes after that, Specialized's attorney declared, “Allowing a third party to use it and alter the condition is spoliation in my book. The settlement was never finalized. Go ahead and file your motion.”
Documents show that negotiations continued, with Ruggiero at one point offering to return the bike if it was replaced with a new Turbo Levo. There were also negotiations over the timing of the $175,000 payment and adding Ruggiero's wife to a confidentiality agreement, allowing her to review the settlement agreement.
On May 5, Ruggiero asked the court to enforce the $175,000 settlement. Specialized opposed the motion, and on Tuesday Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied the enforcement request, saying the communication record showed negotiations were continuing after the April 27 agreement.
“This was not a situation where the parties reached a complete agreement orally and only needed to memorialize the agreement in writing,” Martinez wrote in his order.
