SEATTLE, Wash. (BRAIN) — Specialized and a Washington man who said he was injured due to an alleged flaw in a Specialized e-MTB have told a judge they've reached a settlement. The move comes about two months after the plaintiff asked the court to enforce a settlement agreement that Specialized said was not final. The court declined to enforce that agreement.
Both sides submitted a request to the court this week to dismiss the case. An attorney for the plaintiff told BRAN he would have no comment on the settlement terms or on the case in general. Specialized has declined to comment on the case.
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 charged that Specialized was aware that the bike can accelerate this way, a variation of what 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 claimed. The suit said Ruggiero, who was 65 at the time of the crash, broke seven ribs and suffered other injuries.
The complaint quoted 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, 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.
Earlier settlement falls apart over bike return
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 Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied the enforcement request, saying the 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. On Monday lawyers for Specialized and Ruggiero submitted a joint request that the case be dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay their own costs. The court has yet to approve the dismissal.
