Chevy dealership shitstorm

[Payman]

Remember about 10 years ago when some employee at a Ford dealership destroyed a customer's SVT Mustang, and the resultant internet shitstorm heaped on the dealer? Well, this Chevy dealership apparently  did not learn from it. An employee totalled a customer's Camaro and the dealer is experiencing the online wrath for doing all the wrong things. Unbelievable how stupid this is being handled.


http://jalopnik.com/dealership-totals-customers-camaro-zl1-owner-and-deal-1498804012

[Payman]

My mistake... it was a Mustang Cobra, joyridden by an employee who then bragged about it on a Mustang forum, where the OWNER found out. 

[2o6]

I don't understand why driving a ZL1 is such a big deal for someone who works at a dealership


Why is the dealership pussyfooting around; replace the car with a new one and move on. Problem solved.

[JWC]

The Ford dealership I worked out wouldn't let us even start up a customer's special order Shelby Mustangs.  Once they were off the truck, only the owner was allowed to drive it first. I thought it was stupid since probably six people had already been in the car since built.  After that, only the service manager was allowed to test drive the cars when they came in for any service. 

I worked with Porsche, Benz, and Lamborghini dealers who didn't have such restrictions.

Back several decades there was a consumer protection law in California that allowed the return of a newly purchased vehicle to the dealership for any reason within 48 hours (It might still be a law). A new Prelude was purchased on Saturday afternoon. When we arrived for work on Monday, there was a new Prelude sitting behind the building---only it had been rolled over a few times. On the seat was a note from the owner. It said he bought it Saturday and decided this wasn't the car he wanted and was returning it. It was still in court when I left California.

[Soup DeVille]

I don't understand why the owners haven't just hired a lawyer.

[GoCougs]

The comments on the blog are  . It's a matter of law and contract (insurance), not opinion on what people think the law or insurance should be. Expecting/asking the dealer to pony up ~$60k for a new ZL1 is extremely naive. The owners are only owed what the car is worth, which is notably less than the ~$60k they paid for theirs, no matter who pays for it.

I am not surprised the dealer (and presumably its insurance) is balking. The car was effectively stolen, the employe's possession wasn't in the normal course of business, and the damage occurred off the property.

The ZL1 owners were offered cash value from their insurance company + in effect $5,000 from the dealer. Their insurance company would then in turn pursue the dealership and/or its insurance after the fact (which happens all the time), sidestepping this hassle.

Seems the drama is emanating from the fact that the ZL1 owners didn't have great insurance (i.e., cash-only vs. new value replacement) and couldn't afford the car (making payments after TWO trade-ins?). 

[2o6]

The comments on the blog are  . It's a matter of law and contract (insurance), not opinion on what people think the law or insurance should be. Expecting/asking the dealer to pony up ~$60k for a new ZL1 is extremely naive. The owners are only owed what the car is worth, which is notably less than the ~$60k they paid for theirs, no matter who pays for it.

I am not surprised the dealer (and presumably its insurance) is balking. The car was effectively stolen, the employe's possession wasn't in the normal course of business, and the damage occurred off the property.

The ZL1 owners were offered cash value from their insurance company + in effect $5,000 from the dealer. Their insurance company would then in turn pursue the dealership and/or its insurance after the fact (which happens all the time), sidestepping this hassle.

Seems the drama is emanating from the fact that the ZL1 owners didn't have great insurance (i.e., cash-only vs. new value replacement) and couldn't afford the car (making payments after TWO trade-ins?).

I feel like the guys who buy these ZL1's are extra stupid. When I left the Chevy dealer, there was a guy with a 1LE who had somewhere near of an $800 per month payment....and only made like 40K a year, barely.

[Payman]

The car offered was presented as one owner, improper badges, unwanted sunroof, higher mileage, etc. Mr. Hooper said no thanks, and through Carfax found that it had TWO owners and had been in an accident. I would have refused it as well. For the manager to call him "a prick", and that the Hoopers are no better than the employee who stole the car, the dealership is getting all the shit they deserve for handling the situation in such an inept and unacceptable way.

[Payman]

I feel like the guys who buy these ZL1's are extra stupid. When I left the Chevy dealer, there was a guy with a 1LE who had somewhere near of an $800 per month payment....and only made like 40K a year, barely.

Nice generalization.

[ifcar]

The comments on the blog are  . It's a matter of law and contract (insurance), not opinion on what people think the law or insurance should be. Expecting/asking the dealer to pony up ~$60k for a new ZL1 is extremely naive. The owners are only owed what the car is worth, which is notably less than the ~$60k they paid for theirs, no matter who pays for it.

I am not surprised the dealer (and presumably its insurance) is balking. The car was effectively stolen, the employe's possession wasn't in the normal course of business, and the damage occurred off the property.

The ZL1 owners were offered cash value from their insurance company + in effect $5,000 from the dealer. Their insurance company would then in turn pursue the dealership and/or its insurance after the fact (which happens all the time), sidestepping this hassle.

Seems the drama is emanating from the fact that the ZL1 owners didn't have great insurance (i.e., cash-only vs. new value replacement) and couldn't afford the car (making payments after TWO trade-ins?). 

You'd have a point if there had been a simple mistake, though even then it would have been *nice* if the dealer had done a lot more than the minimum. But this was the dealer trusting the wrong person with access to customers' cars, and its job is to ensure that customers' cars are protected. It failed the customers, and it should be the one suffering the consequence, not the owners.

As far as still having payments, the two trade-ins argument doesn't fly because they presumably still owed plenty on the 2011 Camaro -- which would be the case any time a car is financed rather than bought outright.

[GoCougs]

The car offered was presented as one owner, improper badges, unwanted sunroof, higher mileage, etc. Mr. Hooper said no thanks, and through Carfax found that it had TWO owners and had been in an accident. I would have refused it as well. For the manager to call him "a prick", and that the Hoopers are no better than the employee who stole the car, the dealership is getting all the shit they deserve for handling the situation in such an inept and unacceptable way.

Just how that it's written I'm pretty sure we're not getting the whole story. Again my hunch is the ZL1 owners want the dealer to give them a brand new car, which isn't realistic, even in light of such a sucky situation.

[Soup DeVille]

The comments on the blog are  . It's a matter of law and contract (insurance), not opinion on what people think the law or insurance should be. Expecting/asking the dealer to pony up ~$60k for a new ZL1 is extremely naive. The owners are only owed what the car is worth, which is notably less than the ~$60k they paid for theirs, no matter who pays for it.

I am not surprised the dealer (and presumably its insurance) is balking. The car was effectively stolen, the employe's possession wasn't in the normal course of business, and the damage occurred off the property.

The ZL1 owners were offered cash value from their insurance company + in effect $5,000 from the dealer. Their insurance company would then in turn pursue the dealership and/or its insurance after the fact (which happens all the time), sidestepping this hassle.

Seems the drama is emanating from the fact that the ZL1 owners didn't have great insurance (i.e., cash-only vs. new value replacement) and couldn't afford the car (making payments after TWO trade-ins?). 

The guy who took the car was employed by the dealership at the time, and was therefore acting as an agent of the dealership at the time, meaning there is some culpability there. At the very least it can be argued that the dealer did not take reasonably sufficient measures to ensure the safety of the property they were entrusted with. Especially since its known the dealer in question has had problems with unauthorized joyriding done in he past. 


Like I said, they should be talking to a lawyer.

[Mustangfan2003]

Well doing the right thing would be the dealer buying them a new car just like the one they had and not one with 2 owners and no documentation. 

[Soup DeVille]

If the car is stolen by an employee, I think that muddies the waters a little though.

[GoCougs]

The guy who took the car was employed by the dealership at the time, and was therefore acting as an agent of the dealership at the time, meaning there is some culpability there. At the very least it can be argued that the dealer did not take reasonably sufficient measures to ensure the safety of the property they were entrusted with. Especially since its known the dealer in question has had problems with unauthorized joyriding done in he past. 


Like I said, they should be talking to a lawyer.

Even though it's an embarrassment and looks bad in general I don't necessarily see legal/contractual culpability on the dealer's part. The employee was acting outside the bounds of the law, his position, and the dealership's business in general.

Meh, dealerships and businesses in general get sued and deal with legal issues all the time; they won't be scared by a lawyer. My hunch is a lawyer won't do much here other than give advice (probably along the lines of taking their insurance settlement and finding a replacement car).

[Soup DeVille]

Well doing the right thing would be the dealer buying them a new car just like the one they had and not one with 2 owners and no documentation. 

2012 ZL1s in the exact option and color won't exactly grow on trees though. The dealer found a close match, but screwed the pooch by lying to the guy and being inflexible on price.

[GoCougs]

You'd have a point if there had been a simple mistake, though even then it would have been *nice* if the dealer had done a lot more than the minimum. But this was the dealer trusting the wrong person with access to customers' cars, and its job is to ensure that customers' cars are protected. It failed the customers, and it should be the one suffering the consequence, not the owners.

As far as still having payments, the two trade-ins argument doesn't fly because they presumably still owed plenty on the 2011 Camaro -- which would be the case any time a car is financed rather than bought outright.

"Nice" is a hard thing to do when it's a ~$60k car. A new car dealership seems like a big fancy money making machine but it's a business operating on margin like any other. 

Per the Infiniti dealer I frequent the legalese on the work order says it is not responsible for theft of vehicle and other stuff (freezing, loss of use due to delay, damage due to fire, etc.). I do not know if there is legal basis here but there probably is - if my car is stolen from the dealer I'd expect to be responsible.

It flies IMO as it shows desperation, esp. the '69.

[Payman]

Sad thing is, this was the 5th car the guy bought from this dealer. Pretty shitty to screw over a repeat customer.

To Cougs, you do make some valid points, but let me ask you this: you own a $57,000 Camaro ZL1, optioned the way you like, and it's your pride and joy. It's taken away from you, and you are offered a two-owner, higher milage replacement that has accident repair, options you don't want, plus $5000 cash. You still have to make the same monthly payments as your old car, under the original terms. Accept the offer, or you walk. What would you do? Be honest.

[GoCougs]

Sad thing is, this was the 5th car the guy bought from this dealer. Pretty shitty to screw over a repeat customer.

To Cougs, you do make some valid points, but let me ask you this: you own a $57,000 Camaro ZL1, optioned the way you like, and it's your pride and joy. It's taken away from you, and you are offered a two-owner, higher milage replacement that has accident repair, options you don't want, plus $5000 cash. You still have to make the same monthly payments as your old car, under the original terms. Accept the offer, or you walk. What would you do? Be honest.

I'd wait for a more acceptable car and if that didn't happen after a time I'd take the insurance $$$ and buy a car elsewhere (and pursue legal/civil action against the thief). Thing is I'd never have a payment on a car and this looks to be the sticking point with the situation.

[Payman]

GMauthority has weighed in...

Every now and again we hear of some sort of unfortunate mishap at one of the many Chevrolet dealerships in the U.S., like this Corvette Stingray Premiere Edition that was crashed through a dealers window, or when a male deer decided to ram its way into a Chevy dealer Pennsylvania.  But none have frustrated us to read as much as this story a user posted on the Camaro5 forums.

The user in question traded his 1969 Camaro SS and 2011 Camaro SS in to buy a brand new, 580 horsepower Camaro ZL1. The car went in to the local Georgetown, DE dealer for a simple paint issue, which was covered by warranty. Back in December, an employee came in and decided to take the car for a little joyride, only to lose control of the car and slam it into a pole.

Currently, the dealer and owners insurance companies are sorting this whole mess out. Seeing as the ZL1 was written off as a total loss, the owner wants the dealer to replace it, but the dealership has no interest in doing that. Typical.

Police are currently investigating the incident. Criminal charges have not been laid against the employee, but as you can imagine, he no longer works at the dealership. We don't know how this situation will pan out, but if you ask us, the dealer owes the owner a Camaro. Maybe gifting him a new Camaro Z/28 would be enough to restore the dealer's now tarnished credibility.



Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/01/dealer-wrecks-customer-owned-camaro-zl1-accident-watch/#ixzz2q7NDcVFg

[GoCougs]

Do they matter though? Gifting a $75k Z/28???

[Payman]

Do they matter though? Gifting a $75k Z/28???

Yes. It's the official GM blog site.

Through a shitstorm poorly handled by one of its dealers, GM's name is taking a beating. I expect they need to do this at the dealer's expense to restore some good faith. Remember, the customer is not asking for this... just that his car be replaced with a dollar-value equivalent.

[Payman]

Bob Lutz:

"Ok, all you knee jerkes listen up. This is not a simple as it seems. Read this note from the dealerships web page:
"Recently 1st State Chevrolet had an employee enter the dealership on Sunday December 15th and take a customer's Camaro without authorization and subsequently totaled the customer's car in an accident. Our business is closed on Sundays and was locked as is usual procedure. The employee acted on his own in this unfortunate event. This is an awful situation for both the customer and the dealership to deal with. We have been in contact with the customer and apologized for this situation at length. Both parties' insurance companies are working to handle this claim in a satisfactory manner. Hopefully this situation will be settled in the very near future."
While the car was in the "care, custody, and control" of the dealer, there was a potentially criminal act done by the now ex-employee. So while the insurance coverage is not cut and dried, the customer will be made whole, either by the dealerships insurance or the owners insurance."


Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/01/dealer-wrecks-customer-owned-camaro-zl1-accident-watch/#ixzz2q7UbKxzY

[GoCougs]

Yes. It's the official GM blog site.

Through a shitstorm poorly handled by one of its dealers, GM's name is taking a beating. I expect they need to do this at the dealer's expense to restore some good faith. Remember, the customer is not asking for this... just that his car be replaced with a dollar-value equivalent.

A bit of Googling shows "GM Authority" is a company of 1-10 founded in 2009, so it doesn't sound official to me, which IMO makes sense, as GM can't make a commitment like that willy-nilly, esp. one that could set a very dangerous precedent.

GM really doesn't take a beating for more than one reason, esp. that it has little control over what its dealers do.

[Galaxy]

The comments on the blog are  . It's a matter of law and contract (insurance), not opinion on what people think the law or insurance should be. Expecting/asking the dealer to pony up ~$60k for a new ZL1 is extremely naive. The owners are only owed what the car is worth, which is notably less than the ~$60k they paid for theirs, no matter who pays for it.

I am not surprised the dealer (and presumably its insurance) is balking. The car was effectively stolen, the employe's possession wasn't in the normal course of business, and the damage occurred off the property.

The ZL1 owners were offered cash value from their insurance company + in effect $5,000 from the dealer. Their insurance company would then in turn pursue the dealership and/or its insurance after the fact (which happens all the time), sidestepping this hassle.

Seems the drama is emanating from the fact that the ZL1 owners didn't have great insurance (i.e., cash-only vs. new value replacement) and couldn't afford the car (making payments after TWO trade-ins?). 

The car was under the care and responsibility of the dealership. If an employee drops a hammer and dings the hood the dealership repairs the hood, if the employee wraps the car around a pole.... well giving him a new car will be cheaper then repairing the thing. The should choose a better employee next time.

[Payman]

A bit of Googling shows "GM Authority" is a company of 1-10 founded in 2009, so it doesn't sound official to me, which IMO makes sense, as GM can't make a commitment like that willy-nilly, esp. one that could set a very dangerous precedent.

GM really doesn't take a beating for more than one reason, esp. that it has little control over what its dealers do.

Yeah my bad. Discovered the same thing. Still, GM must be watching this closely. Although the dealership is protected by law, there's still plenty that GM can do to force a proper resolution to the matter.

[Mustangfan2003]

Moral of the story is if you have a car like this you might want to document the mileage before you take it to the shop. 

[Soup DeVille]

Even though it's an embarrassment and looks bad in general I don't necessarily see legal/contractual culpability on the dealer's part. The employee was acting outside the bounds of the law, his position, and the dealership's business in general.

Meh, dealerships and businesses in general get sued and deal with legal issues all the time; they won't be scared by a lawyer. My hunch is a lawyer won't do much here other than give advice (probably along the lines of taking their insurance settlement and finding a replacement car).

No, I don't think the lawyer would scare them, he would however, likely do a better job of negotiating a solution than these guys seem able to do.

I'd have let the dealer try to work something out too; until they lied to me.

[Soup DeVille]

Moral of the story is if you have a car like this you might want to document the mileage before you take it to the shop. 

Dashcam pointed at the driver's face might not be a bad idea either.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Set the building on fire.