Chevy dealership shitstorm

[Mustangfan2003]

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

Yup and for body work there is no reason the car should leave the lot. 

[Mustangfan2003]

Set the building on fire.

Just park a new Silverado inside

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2014-gm-full-size-trucks-spontaneously-combusting-reca-1499046041/@ballaban

[Payman]

I like this response posted at Jalopnik:


This is just bad business on the part of the dealership owner and management.

If you operate a repair shop of any sort, there are some basic rules:

- When a customer-owned vehicle is in your possession, YOU as the business owner are 100% responsible for its safety and well-being. While the dealership did its due diligence in locking the car up over the weekend, the fact that an employee of the dealership (i.e. a legal representative of the business) was able to gain access to the vehicle and use it at all means that the business (and, thus, its insurer) are on the hook for replacing the car after the employee in question destroyed it. You are obligated to take care of the customer. Period. Neither the customer nor the customer's insurer should be charged any money whatsoever.

- Great, you fired the guy on the spot. Yeah, it was his fault. But the car wasn't conveyed into HIS individual possession, it was conveyed into your BUSINESS'S possession. Firing him does not absolve you as a business of liability. Take him to court to recover your costs incurred making it right for the customer if you must (and you really should), but first MAKE IT RIGHT FOR THE CUSTOMER.

- "Make it right for the customer" means replacing their vehicle with one that meets the customer's requirements. Ideally, since we're talking here about a new, low-mile vehicle that is in current series production, this is a new car equipped the way the customer wants, or an equivalent same-year car with the same equipment and in equal or better condition to the customer's car pre-your-employee-destroying-it.

- Trying to pull one over on a savvy customer — and it's clear that Mr. Hooper is very savvy — with a poor substitute that has a checkered history and thinking that is acceptable is... wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. WRONG. Even if CARFAX didn't exist and it was difficult to verify a vehicle's history, you would be wrong. Attempting this move while knowing that CARFAX *does* exist and it's *easy* to verify a vehicles history makes you both wrong and willfully stupid.

- Charging the customer for the replacement vehicle — for that matter, making the customer file an insurance loss claim on their personal insurance at all — for damage that occurred while the vehicle was in your possession as a business is also WRONG. YOU are responsible, Mr. Dealer Principal. Not the customer. Not the customer's insurer. YOU.

Given that the nigh-inevitable legal battle will be protracted and will almost certainly result in you losing far more than the cost of a proper replacement vehicle — and good luck getting your insurer to cover the stupid tax you'll be charged by the court for your bad decisions in this matter — and given that you're already losing badly in the even-more-inevitable court of public opinion, might I suggest the wisest course of action for you is to a) fix the problem the right way, right away, and b) apologize for being a colossal asshat to your customer. Then, and only then, will you be able to save some amount of face.

Because the way you're doing things now, the Streisand Effect is already starting to rain down upon you, and it's not gonna be pretty.

Sincerely,

Jim Crider
Automotive Industry (service and engineering) Veteran   

[Rupert]

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.

That would have been my first call once it was clear the dealer wasn't going to do the right thing.

And LOL at Cougs for hiring a lawyer for a dumb traffic ticket that he was fully guilty of, but now saying there's no reason for a lawyer in this case.

[Mustangfan2003]

That would have been my first call once it was clear the dealer wasn't going to do the right thing.

And LOL at Cougs for hiring a lawyer for a dumb traffic ticket that he was fully guilty of, but now saying there's no reason for a lawyer in this case.

Wait, he hired a lawyer for a traffic ticket?  What good is that going to fucking do? 

[GoCougs]

That would have been my first call once it was clear the dealer wasn't going to do the right thing.

And LOL at Cougs for hiring a lawyer for a dumb traffic ticket that he was fully guilty of, but now saying there's no reason for a lawyer in this case.

It's not like the movies/TV - lawyers are not personal pit bulls to be set loose at every slight. Also, watch the strawman, I never said not to talk to one.

[Rupert]

And I never said lawyers are personal pit bulls (etc.).

[Soup DeVille]

It's not like the movies/TV - lawyers are not personal pit bulls to be set loose at every slight. Also, watch the strawman, I never said not to talk to one.

No, this is what you said :

"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). "

When I suggested gthey talk to one.

[GoCougs]

Correct; never said don't talk to a lawyer.

[Soup DeVille]

Correct; never said don't talk to a lawyer.

Yeah, you just said there's no point. 

[J86]

Everyone should always talk to lawyers!  And pay them!

[Soup DeVille]

Everyone should always talk to lawyers!  And pay them!

Nobody asked you, shyster.

[Byteme]

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

From the artical you cited:  We can't even have charges pressed against their employee for theft because the car was not in OUR possession when stolen.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Question for the LEOs here?  is that correct?

[Madman]

Seems to me the ex-employee should be charged with theft and made to pay. 

[Soup DeVille]

Seems to me the ex-employee should be charged with theft and made to pay. 

It seems to me that the dealership would have insurance for such instances where property entrusted to them is stolen from them. It seems to me that if that were the case, then charges would have been filed immediately at the the behest of the insurance company.

[Madman]

It seems to me that the dealership would have insurance for such instances where property entrusted to them is stolen from them. It seems to me that if that were the case, then charges would have been filed immediately at the the behest of the insurance company.

True.  Then the dealership (or rather the dealership's insurance company) can try to sue the ex-employee to recover their losses.  Either way, the dealership needs to step up and do the right thing and make the customer whole.  The longer they act like pricks, the worse it will be for them.  I'm willing to bet they have already lost potential customers due to the bad publicity.

[Byteme]

Wait, he hired a lawyer for a traffic ticket?  What good is that going to fucking do?

Don'r believe everything you read.   

[Mustangfan2003]

Looks like the issue is getting resolved

http://jalopnik.com/owner-of-camaro-zl1-crashed-by-dealership-is-getting-a-1501366861?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Soup DeVille]

Looks like the issue is getting resolved

http://jalopnik.com/owner-of-camaro-zl1-crashed-by-dealership-is-getting-a-1501366861?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Interesting end to the story.

[GoCougs]

Pretty much what I expected - it's on the ZL1's owner's insurance. There are some lessons here for all:

1.) The Internet is a wasteland of bullying.
2.) Dealing with the general public sucks.
3.) Buy a car you can afford and have good insurance.
4.) Own your problems by understanding the situation.

Have to laugh at the ricer give aways. Don't do that to a ZL1 (CAI, LED lighting, sway bars)...

[Rupert]

I still think the dealership's insurance should have paid for it. It's in no way Hooper's fault and in every way the dealership's.

[GoCougs]

I still think the dealership's insurance should have paid for it. It's in no way Hooper's fault and in every way the dealership's.

Most insurance has lots of caveats and clauses - homeowner's insurance doesn't cover flood or earthquake damage, life insurance typically doesn't cover suicide, my foreign traveler's health insurance doesn't cover sports injuries or dental issues, etc., etc. Lots of insurance has clauses about not covering illegal activity. Given that plenty of stakeholders have surely poured over this the verdict is apparently that the dealership's insurance doesn't cover it, which I'm not surprised at. As a business owner I'm not going to pay for additional insurance to cover offsite damage owing to illegal acts by my employees (even if available, would be surprised if it was). As to the dealer paying out-of-pocket, ~$60k represents the profit of many many cars sold, repaired and serviced, so there's no way they're going to do that voluntarily.

[Galaxy]

Most insurance has lots of caveats and clauses - homeowner's insurance doesn't cover flood or earthquake damage, life insurance typically doesn't cover suicide, my foreign traveler's health insurance doesn't cover sports injuries or dental issues, etc., etc. Lots of insurance has clauses about not covering illegal activity. Given that plenty of stakeholders have surely poured over this the verdict is apparently that the dealership's insurance doesn't cover it, which I'm not surprised at. As a business owner I'm not going to pay for additional insurance to cover offsite damage owing to illegal acts by my employees (even if available, would be surprised if it was). As to the dealer paying out-of-pocket, ~$60k represents the profit of many many cars sold, repaired and serviced, so there's no way they're going to do that voluntarily.

You are comparing apple to oranges. If you're foreign traveler's health insurance does not cover sport injuries, and you go skiing abroad, it is your own stupidity. In this case the owner of the car had zero liability in the damage of his vehicle.

[Soup DeVille]

I still think the dealership's insurance should have paid for it. It's in no way Hooper's fault and in every way the dealership's.

Most insurance doesn't  concern itself too much with fault, other than fraud. 

[GoCougs]

You are comparing apple to oranges. If you're foreign traveler's health insurance does not cover sport injuries, and you go skiing abroad, it is your own stupidity. In this case the owner of the car had zero liability in the damage of his vehicle.

Insurance is a contact; just because someone has "insurance" doesn't mean they're covered for everything per my examples. Further, it is not uncommon for various insurances to not cover illegal acts owing to the propensity for fraud.

Correct, the ZL1 owner isn't (legally) liable, and apparently the dealer isn't either - the thief likely is, which is what I'd expect. However, it behooves the ZL1 owner to watch out for his property as no one is going to care as much as him (ergo, his own insurance).

[NomisR]

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.

I think you're putting too much weight on the owner's financial situation in this matter.  In the end, it's about a car being in the dealer's custody and one of the employees broke in and went on a joy ride.  And consider the guy's a repeat customer, you would think they would want his business again.  Or maybe not. 

But if someone did this to you.. well, I guess you wouldn't be pissed since you would be getting pedestrian cars anyways since you believe something like a Honda Accord is good enough for everyone...

[GoCougs]

I think you're putting too much weight on the owner's financial situation in this matter.  In the end, it's about a car being in the dealer's custody and one of the employees broke in and went on a joy ride.  And consider the guy's a repeat customer, you would think they would want his business again.  Or maybe not. 

But if someone did this to you.. well, I guess you wouldn't be pissed since you would be getting pedestrian cars anyways since you believe something like a Honda Accord is good enough for everyone...

No, not really. People who can legitimately afford big ticket toys generally know how these things work and aren't taken to acting like a ginormous pussy in (Internet) public. They generally get to the point of being able to afford things like ZL1s by understanding things, dealing with things, solving things, and then moving on with life at a minimum of pussyism.

Another thing about people who can legitimately afford things like ZL1s they don't wrap their lives and self worth in these things (which also makes people do stupid things). I also had to laugh at the mention of "but I've made xxx number of car payments and I still don't have a replacement car."  . Car/lease payments = non affordability, and making payments on a ZL1 is downright hilarious.

Sure I'd be pissed but my life would go on. I can legitimately afford a ZL1 and understand how insurance and business in general works. I also read things that I sign, and as I had stated earlier, the Infiniti dealership says on its service agreement it is not responsible for theft (or fire and flood, etc., etc.).

I had to laugh at every mention of this story how the ZL1 is "prized" and "precious" and "collectible" and all the rest of the of hyperbole (whether by the owner I can't remember). Just further goes to show the desperation in trying to make this story into something that it isn't.

[Galaxy]

Insurance is a contact; just because someone has "insurance" doesn't mean they're covered for everything per my examples. Further, it is not uncommon for various insurances to not cover illegal acts owing to the propensity for fraud.

Correct, the ZL1 owner isn't (legally) liable, and apparently the dealer isn't either - the thief likely is, which is what I'd expect. However, it behooves the ZL1 owner to watch out for his property as no one is going to care as much as him (ergo, his own insurance).

In the end if someone else damages my property that person is going to be picking up the bill. If his insurance does not cover it is his problem.

He did take care of his property. He sent it to an official Chevy dealer, not some shady shop in some back ally.

[GoCougs]

In the end if someone else damages my property that person is going to be picking up the bill. If his insurance does not cover it is his problem.

He did take care of his property. He sent it to an official Chevy dealer, not some shady shop in some back ally.

If you can't afford the car the chances are slim you can afford an attorney to file and see a lawsuit through. In the US, generally, this monetary amount will kick it into Superior court (vs. District court) making it a much more expensive endeavor (probably $3-5k just to file the suit), and pretty much no attorney is going to take this on contingency (= paid only if he wins, and paid from the judgement). Even so, best case is you win the court case, and collect legal fees, but that will take a year or more and all the while you'll be without a car yet still making payments on it. And of course worse case is you lose, which would be a HUGE loss.

My hunch is the ZL1 owner's insurance pushed for him to take the settlement check. It's just easier for everyone, and that is what insurance is for - to protect the customer per the terms of the contract. After thinking about it a bit I would not be surprised if the ZL1 owner's finance company has some fine print about having to replace a totaled car in a relatively short time frame as they're on the hook for what is in effect an unsecured loan until that's done. 

Taking care of property isn't just giving your property to someone expecting that they'll replace or repair it or collateral damage if they damage or destroy it, especially if it is very expensive property. Could also be the law is on their side in NOT doing so (for example, in WA state, if I loan my car to someone and they cause a wreck, by law I am responsible for the damage they cause to others (they are responsible for the damage to my car however, but I have insurance that covers me if they can't/won't pay)). Taking care of property is also planning for contingencies (= insurance, which in the least the ZL1 owner had, and has to, since he financed it).

[NomisR]

Look up the M5 crash by dealer.. that one took 16 months to resolve...