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 (http://jalopnik.com/dealership-totals-customers-camaro-zl1-owner-and-deal-1498804012)
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. :golfclap:
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.
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.
I don't understand why the owners haven't just hired a lawyer.
The comments on the blog are :facepalm:. 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?).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 10:59:42 AM
The comments on the blog are :facepalm:. 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.
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.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 11, 2014, 11:02:54 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 10:59:42 AM
The comments on the blog are :facepalm:. 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.
Quote from: Rockraven on January 11, 2014, 11:04:52 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 10:59:42 AM
The comments on the blog are :facepalm:. 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.
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.
If the car is stolen by an employee, I think that muddies the waters a little though.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 11, 2014, 11:19:00 AM
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).
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 11, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
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.
Quote from: ifcar on January 11, 2014, 11:10:11 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Rockraven on January 11, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
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.
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 (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/01/dealer-wrecks-customer-owned-camaro-zl1-accident-watch/#ixzz2q7NDcVFg)
:clap:
Do they matter though? Gifting a $75k Z/28???
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 12:14:39 PM
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.
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 (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/01/dealer-wrecks-customer-owned-camaro-zl1-accident-watch/#ixzz2q7UbKxzY)
Quote from: Rockraven on January 11, 2014, 12:19:44 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 10:59:42 AM
The comments on the blog are :facepalm:. 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.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 12:35:27 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 11:36:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 11, 2014, 12:48:02 PM
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.
Set the building on fire.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 11, 2014, 01:47:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 11, 2014, 01:49:42 PM
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 (http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2014-gm-full-size-trucks-spontaneously-combusting-reca-1499046041/@ballaban)
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
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 11, 2014, 11:19:00 AM
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. :hmm:
Quote from: Rupert on January 11, 2014, 04:59:01 PM
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. :hmm:
Wait, he hired a lawyer for a traffic ticket? What good is that going to fucking do?
Quote from: Rupert on January 11, 2014, 04:59:01 PM
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. :hmm:
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.
And I never said lawyers are personal pit bulls (etc.). ;)
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 05:20:10 PM
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.
Correct; never said don't talk to a lawyer.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 07:21:15 PM
Correct; never said don't talk to a lawyer.
Yeah, you just said there's no point.
Everyone should always talk to lawyers! And pay them!
Quote from: J86 on January 12, 2014, 11:19:13 AM
Everyone should always talk to lawyers! And pay them!
Nobody asked you, shyster.
Quote from: Rockraven on January 11, 2014, 08:34:31 AM
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 (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?
Seems to me the ex-employee should be charged with theft and made to pay. :huh:
Quote from: Madman on January 12, 2014, 05:44:55 PM
Seems to me the ex-employee should be charged with theft and made to pay. :huh:
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 12, 2014, 10:52:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 11, 2014, 05:07:57 PM
Wait, he hired a lawyer for a traffic ticket? What good is that going to fucking do?
Don'r believe everything you read. ;)
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 (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)
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 14, 2014, 04:26:10 PM
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 (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.
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)...
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.
Quote from: Rupert on January 14, 2014, 07:13:08 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 14, 2014, 08:02:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Rupert on January 14, 2014, 07:13:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Galaxy on January 15, 2014, 03:53:51 AM
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).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2014, 11:59:32 AM
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...
Quote from: NomisR on January 15, 2014, 11:41:41 AM
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." :facepalm:. 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.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2014, 10:33:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Galaxy on January 15, 2014, 12:01:43 PM
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).
Look up the M5 crash by dealer.. that one took 16 months to resolve...
Quote from: NomisR on January 15, 2014, 02:21:22 PM
Look up the M5 crash by dealer.. that one took 16 months to resolve...
Unlike this ZL1 case the M5 case a pretty open-n-shut case given that the tech was operating within the scope of this job. However, fat good that does given it took the M5 owner 16 months and $100k+ in legal fees to "win." M5 owner probably didn't have collision insurance (yet another good lesson about having good insurance for protecting oneself, even in light of the fact someone else was liable).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2014, 03:14:50 PM
Unlike this ZL1 case the M5 case a pretty open-n-shut case given that the tech was operating within the scope of this job. However, fat good that does given it took the M5 owner 16 months and $100k+ in legal fees to "win." M5 owner probably didn't have collision insurance (yet another good lesson about having good insurance for protecting oneself, even in light of the fact someone else was liable).
Yeah, this sorta defeats the whole purpose of going to a dealer believing that you're in good hands.. that's why I rarely take my car to get reamed by a dealer unless it's warranty work, absolutely not worth it at all.
Quote from: NomisR on January 15, 2014, 03:27:04 PM
Yeah, this sorta defeats the whole purpose of going to a dealer believing that you're in good hands.. that's why I rarely take my car to get reamed by a dealer unless it's warranty work, absolutely not worth it at all.
Well, I'm pretty sure 100% of dealers the country over would also not choose to give owner a replacement ZL1 in this situation.
Another good lesson: How A Tuner Totaled A $200,000 Ford GT (http://jalopnik.com/5668088/how-a-tuner-totaled-a-200000-ford-gt). Tuner admits to crashing the car on a test drive but doesn't have insurance nor the money to foot the bill. The GT's owner insurance eventually covered the loss. Even in a cut-n-dry situation doesn't mean the right thing will be done. Good insurance is the glue that makes things better/whole.
I also have a hunch it has to do with insurance law, which is highly regulated, and very goofy when it comes to cars. For example, if I borrow a friend's car and plow into a school bus, state law says his insurance covers the damages. If I plow into a deer, but don't have collision insurance, state law says comprehensive coverage covers damage. If I plow into a tree, but don't have collision insurance, state law says I'm SOL.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 15, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
Another good lesson: How A Tuner Totaled A $200,000 Ford GT (http://jalopnik.com/5668088/how-a-tuner-totaled-a-200000-ford-gt). Tuner admits to crashing the car on a test drive but doesn't have insurance nor the money to foot the bill. The GT's owner insurance eventually covered the loss. Even in a cut-n-dry situation doesn't mean the right thing will be done. Good insurance is the glue that makes things better/whole.
I also have a hunch it has to do with insurance law, which is highly regulated, and very goofy when it comes to cars. For example, if I borrow a friend's car and plow into a school bus, state law says his insurance covers the damages. If I plow into a deer, but don't have collision insurance, state law says comprehensive coverage covers damage. If I plow into a tree, but don't have collision insurance, state law says I'm SOL.
So.. government's fault?
Quote from: NomisR on January 15, 2014, 04:43:34 PM
So.. government's fault?
It's cougs. We would all be better off living in a society of anarchy.
When I worked at a Honda dealer we had a salesman crash a new Acura Legend--rolling it over a few times. Unfortunately, the customers were in the car, husband and wife. They got hospital paid for and two new Legends. It was classic too, because they had already decided on the car and while waiting for F&I to finish with someone else, their salesman offered to "show them what it would do".
Quote from: JWC on January 15, 2014, 08:47:02 PM
When I worked at a Honda dealer we had a salesman crash a new Acura Legend--rolling it over a few times. Unfortunately, the customers were in the car, husband and wife. They got hospital paid for and two new Legends. It was classic too, because they had already decided on the car and while waiting for F&I to finish with someone else, their salesman offered to "show them what it would do".
Well, they got to see how safe it was :lol:
Quote from: Mustangfan2003 on January 15, 2014, 09:28:57 PM
Well, they got to see how safe it was :lol:
Pfft, honda fanbois(the salesman).
Want me to show you what this baby can do???
It's a mediocure mainstream family sedan, it can't do much of anything.
Quote from: NomisR on January 15, 2014, 04:43:34 PM
So.. government's fault?
No, it's the thief's fault. That complicated insurance law exists didn't compel him to steal and wreck the car.
Well, I guess the entire episode is over, and again, it seems like the victims are wrongly characterized in this issue.
http://jalopnik.com/owner-of-camaro-zl1-crashed-by-dealership-is-getting-a-1501366861 (http://jalopnik.com/owner-of-camaro-zl1-crashed-by-dealership-is-getting-a-1501366861)
In the end, it's really about poor handling of the situation by the dealership rather than the owners demanding too much. Dealers pretty much found an used replacement that the owners did not want and took a take it or leave it stance, whereas, what the owners would've simply preferred was the dealer taking more effort to actually get a car that they wanted, which I don't see anything wrong with that..
At least GM and another dealer helped and righted the wrong.
Would have been a good chance to move on, since he just got a insurance check.
Kinda surprised some smooth talking ford dealership owner didn't slip into this and have a shiny new and well discounted ford waiting for this gentleman. Topped off with a personal handshake and a smile from the dealership principal and a credit for some gen-u-ine ford racing accessories.
"We at ford would like to take the opportunity to educate the GM dealer network on how to handle and take car of customers"
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on January 17, 2014, 12:33:24 PM
Would have been a good chance to move on, since he just got a insurance check.
Kinda surprised some smooth talking ford dealership owner didn't slip into this and have a shiny new and well discounted ford waiting for this gentleman. Topped off with a personal handshake and a smile from the dealership principal and a credit for some gen-u-ine ford racing accessories.
"We at ford would like to take the opportunity to educate the GM dealer network on how to handle and take car of customers"
That would have been a brilliant move, but very expensive.
Quote from: SVT666 on January 17, 2014, 12:51:50 PM
That would have been a brilliant move, but very expensive.
At least at my old dealer, (we had two Hyundai Locations, Nissan, Chevy, GMC, Buick and a big ass used car lot) it would have been pocket change compared to the publicity they would have generated.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on January 17, 2014, 12:33:24 PM
Would have been a good chance to move on, since he just got a insurance check.
Kinda surprised some smooth talking ford dealership owner didn't slip into this and have a shiny new and well discounted ford waiting for this gentleman. Topped off with a personal handshake and a smile from the dealership principal and a credit for some gen-u-ine ford racing accessories.
"We at ford would like to take the opportunity to educate the GM dealer network on how to handle and take car of customers"
Well, the problem with the last statement is that the same Ford dealer would likely to have also owned a GM dealer nearby as well.
But I think the guy just wanted another Camaro ZL1 and that dealer probably doesn't have the allocation and won't try to get one. For the price though, couldn't he have gotten a Corvette Stingray instead?
Quote from: SVT666 on January 17, 2014, 12:51:50 PM
That would have been a brilliant move, but very expensive.
How would it be expensive, I didn't say give it to him for free.
Taking a 60(ish)K car, slapping 15 off of it and absorbing the loss through an advertising budget would have been completely fine.
I am fully confident that a dealership would have been able to eat the 60K with minimal effects (initially).
Just from seeing how much shit we had to take from when I worked at the Chevy dealer.....I am surprised the owner didn't just eat it and give them a new ZL1.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 17, 2014, 01:01:27 PM
At least at my old dealer, (we had two Hyundai Locations, Nissan, Chevy, GMC, Buick and a big ass used car lot) it would have been pocket change compared to the publicity they would have generated.
The publicity would be a couple hundred jalopnik nerds reading about it :lol: Not worth it.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 17, 2014, 01:27:07 PM
I am fully confident that a dealership would have been able to eat the 60K with minimal effects (initially).
Just from seeing how much shit we had to take from when I worked at the Chevy dealer.....I am surprised the owner didn't just eat it and give them a new ZL1.
:huh: Margins at dealerships are paper thin. $60k is a lot to a car dealership.
Quote from: MrH on January 17, 2014, 03:07:49 PM
The publicity would be a couple hundred jalopnik nerds reading about it :lol: Not worth it.
Not if they publicized it right.
Not saying they should have done that, but dealerships do give cars away from time to time, specifically for publicity.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 17, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
Not if they publicized it right.
Not saying they should have done that, but dealerships do give cars away from time to time, specifically for publicity.
You'll find others are paying for that car; usually sponsors that are advertised along with whatever event.
No dealer is going to give away a car out of pocket, esp. to "win" business. It's a crazy assertion.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 17, 2014, 04:08:42 PM
You'll find others are paying for that car; usually sponsors that are advertised along with whatever event.
No dealer is going to give away a car out of pocket, esp. to "win" business. It's a crazy assertion.
I think just doing more than what the original dealer did would've worked.. like helping the guy at least find a suitable replacement he could buy rather than a beat up one that he didn't even want and say take it or leave it.
Quote from: MrH on January 17, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
:huh: Margins at dealerships are paper thin. $60k is a lot to a car dealership.
It depends on what kind of volume they're moving - at my old dealer, our profit margin was thinner than others, but we made it up with volume.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 17, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
Not if they publicized it right.
Not saying they should have done that, but dealerships do give cars away from time to time, specifically for publicity.
Tax write off
Quote from: MrH on January 17, 2014, 03:07:49 PM
The publicity would be a couple hundred jalopnik nerds reading about it :lol: Not worth it.
Plus their entire clientele....anyone who hears of this story would be turned off... It affects the view of the dealership as a whole.
When I worked at the old Chevy dealer, that said if we came across a disgruntled customer in public, say at a grocery store, any sort of monitory compensation (like buying someone groceries) to get them back in the dealer, the franchise owner would foot the bill.
Not how the world works.
So not eating 60K car is not a good idea versus having a tarnished reputation?