In announcing the recall last month, G.M. officials said the company had been aware since 2004 of the defective switches — which could, if jostled by a knee, keys or a bump in the road, suddenly shut down the car’s power and disable the air bags. It sent a notice to dealers in 2005 advising them to warn customers not to use cluttered and heavy key chains, but it did not move to fix the problem until now.

Part of the legal strategy being explored in the product liability cases revolves around the unusual structure of the bankruptcy agreement. The Chapter 11 case split the company into “old” and “new” corporate entities.

The “old” G.M. was saddled with bad assets like closed assembly plants and made responsible for legal claims from accidents that happened before the bankruptcy filing.

The “old” company, which has since been dissolved into four separate trusts, settled 85 percent of the $275 billion in claims pending against it in 2011, most of which were product liability cases, an official said, though how many of those were related to the ignition problem is unknown. To date only two ignition cases are publicly known to have been settled, and under the terms of those agreements, the details cannot be disclosed.

Image Frederick Henderson announced that G.M. was exiting bankruptcy during a news conference in July 2009. Credit... Carlos Osorio/Associated Press

The “new” G.M. purchased, with the help of the federal government, all the “good” assets, including operating plants and office buildings, and was granted protection from previous claims though not future ones. It is the revitalized company that stands today with growing sales and profits. Its recovery has been so complete that the government recently sold its last stake in the company, and G.M. has posted 16 consecutive profitable quarters, with a net income of $3.77 billion in 2013.

Lawyers want to invoke the concept of “successor liability” on the new company. To do that, they argue that because the new company was essentially the same as the old company — same leadership, same headquarters, same plants, same product lines — it is in fact liable in these cases and the bankruptcy agreement should be thrown out. While unusual, a similar approach has been tried in other bankruptcy cases, including a bankruptcy of the Chateaugay Corporation in the 1990s.