Dealerhip totals owner's Camaro ZL1, won't replace

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
2,151
Location
Tinton Falls NJ
A Chevrolet dealership in Delaware had an owner's Camaro ZL1 in for a warranty paint repair during which time an employee took it for a joyride and smashed it into a telephone pole. Not only has the dealer not offered to replace their car, they instead found a used ZL1 with an accident record the customer could buy from them. UNBELIEVABLE. This should not stand. I hope the customer gets a replacement car and the dealership is dealt with appropriately.

Link to story on Jalopnik
 
Yeah there's no way he won't get a new car.

Cheapest lawyer you can get would have you walking away with money in that scenario.
 
So sad. I wish them all the best and hope it gets resolved w/ a brand new ZL1.

This from the article, "We can't even have charges pressed against their employee for theft because the car was not in OUR possession when stolen."

Reminds me when I was also informed by a childhood friend who rose the ranks of the Marlton, NJ PD and now a NJ Trooper that, when I had prospective buyers test drive my now sold Sequoia and I handed them the keys for a test run and if they never returned I could NOT report it as stolen/press charges since I willingly handed them my keys and vehicle and I would have to go through the court system.
 
Insurance company will pay off, then they will TEE OFF on the STEALERSHIP! Still trying to figure out why the joyriding employee isn't charged with grand theft auto on this one.
 
Heh, after that treatment, I'd get my own insurance company to buy me a new one, then let them (and their lawyers) go after the dealership, its insurance, the fired service writer and anyone else they could find, to collect on what they'd paid out (and incidentally get me my deductible back).
 
Oh will they pay. I would park it in front of the dealership with huge sign....
I wonder if they will offer free oil changes for life???
 
Predictable: dealer does something stupid, Internet blows up over it, dealer recants to save face.

Next week there will be a follow-up article about how they're buying him a new ZL1.
 
Unfortunately if the owner signed a repair order when he left the car there is a disclaimer on it stating the dealership is not responsible for damages, it sucks but that's the way it is.
Usually gives them permission to road test the car also. They aren't obligated to replace the car but tried to sell him a replacement car, at s discounted price.
The customer should let his insurance handle it, the dealership is not at fault this time. Looks like the employee came in after hours and drove it.
 
The more I read about this story, the more it looks like an owner who is upset about getting shafted by his insurance company.

The owners says he traded in his 2011 Camaro SS and a "pristine" 1969 Camaro SS to buy the ZL1. He also goes on to say that he is still making payments on it, so he also pulled a loan to buy it.

The money side just doesn't add up. One would think that a pristine 1969 Camaro SS and a pretty new, and well maintained by the sounds of the owner, 2011 Camaro SS would be enough to cover the entire purchase price of a 2012 ZL1. If not cover it outright, it'd cover a lot of it, making for a very large down payment, plus a small loan for the difference.

So if the ZL1 were totaled, much of the money he had invested in the car would be coming back to him. If it's not, that's between him and his insurance company, not the dealership. That's money he could take and put toward a new 2014 ZL1. In this scenario, I could see the dealership offering to pay the *difference* between what he's getting out of the totaled ZL1 and what a 2014 would cost. That'd be pretty fair.

From the dealer's view, it wasn't a new car. It was two years old, it had mileage on it, and no matter how babied a car it, it depreciates in value rather quickly. Like most small businesses, dealerships don't keep $60,000 just lying around to dole out as charity because one of their former employees was a .

Of course, the other scenario is the guy sold his 1969 and his 2011, took all the money from those and spent it on a boatload of blow, then financed the entire purchase price of the ZL1, leaving him SOL when it was totaled.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Roadkingnc
Unfortunately if the owner signed a repair order when he left the car there is a disclaimer on it stating the dealership is not responsible for damages, it sucks but that's the way it is.
Usually gives them permission to road test the car also. They aren't obligated to replace the car but tried to sell him a replacement car, at s discounted price.
The customer should let his insurance handle it, the dealership is not at fault this time. Looks like the employee came in after hours and drove it.

I agree with you for the most part. The employee did not wreck the car while in the normal scope of his employment (he stole it, remember?), so the dealership is probably off the hook from a legal perspective, which is why their lawyers told them not to offer any other deals.

Even if the dealership has some liability here, it no more than if they were an individual and not a company. Most of the comments here and after the linked story are ridiculous. Why do they owe him a new car to replace his two year old car? At most, they (or their insurance company) owe him the value of his totaled car, the same as if he wrapped it around a telephone pole himself. He should have already received that money from his insurance company, unless he did not have comprehensive coverage on it (which would be a bonehead move on his part as he stated he "will never be able to afford another new ZL1") or his insurance company did not think they would be able to recover that amount from the dealer (or, again, their insurance company).

The most he is owed is the fair market value of his car before it was wrecked. With that money, he could theoretically go out and purchase a replacement vehicle that had the same mileage and features of his wrecked car (less taxes, registration, etc.). He isn't even due any rental car expenses because this car was barely driven (something like 10,000 miles in two years) and was a show car, so I doubt he needed it for daily use. That is the way our legal system works. He needs to grow up and accept that he cannot get what he wants just because he thinks it is fair or that the car was his "baby". It was a freaking car!!!
 
And the title of the story is ridiculous. The dealership did not total the car, an employee acting outside the scope of his employment and not even while he was on the clock took it without permission, so the title should be "Dealership Service Writer Steals and Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner at War With Wrong Party (Dummy)".
 
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: Roadkingnc
Unfortunately if the owner signed a repair order when he left the car there is a disclaimer on it stating the dealership is not responsible for damages, it sucks but that's the way it is.
Usually gives them permission to road test the car also. They aren't obligated to replace the car but tried to sell him a replacement car, at s discounted price.
The customer should let his insurance handle it, the dealership is not at fault this time. Looks like the employee came in after hours and drove it.

I agree with you for the most part. The employee did not wreck the car while in the normal scope of his employment (he stole it, remember?), so the dealership is probably off the hook from a legal perspective, which is why their lawyers told them not to offer any other deals.

Even if the dealership has some liability here, it no more than if they were an individual and not a company. Most of the comments here and after the linked story are ridiculous. Why do they owe him a new car to replace his two year old car? At most, they (or their insurance company) owe him the value of his totaled car, the same as if he wrapped it around a telephone pole himself. He should have already received that money from his insurance company, unless he did not have comprehensive coverage on it (which would be a bonehead move on his part as he stated he "will never be able to afford another new ZL1") or his insurance company did not think they would be able to recover that amount from the dealer (or, again, their insurance company).

The most he is owed is the fair market value of his car before it was wrecked. With that money, he could theoretically go out and purchase a replacement vehicle that had the same mileage and features of his wrecked car (less taxes, registration, etc.). He isn't even due any rental car expenses because this car was barely driven (something like 10,000 miles in two years) and was a show car, so I doubt he needed it for daily use. That is the way our legal system works. He needs to grow up and accept that he cannot get what he wants just because he thinks it is fair or that the car was his "baby". It was a freaking car!!!


If the employee did in fact come in after hrs and drove it w/o permission then he stole it. I'd have him arrested if that's the case, let the police and insurance take care of it.
 
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
 
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Wonder what the new female GM CEO has to say about that?


This is a Dealership issue, not anyway GM's concern. The dealership is an independently owned business. GM is not involved and should not be. It is between the dealer and the owner. I hate that it is that way because bad dealers give GM a bad name because 95% of the population think GM dealers are GM. Heck some dealership employees even wrongly claim that they work for GM when they do not.
 
There's really two big issues here and a boat load of minutia,

The two big issues are:

What is the dealer legally obligated to do?

What is the "right" (or even prudent) thing to do?

Unless you're a Delaware lawyer with access to all of the information it is pretty much impossible to answer "legally obligated to do"...

As far as prudent, look at all the bad publicity and lost productivity from people dealing with this, I'd almost bet they would be money ahead if they had ordered a new one and given to him for whatever the they could recover from insurance...

You guys are right too, the money doesn't add up.

I'd bet we don't have the whole story from either side...
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.


Good question maybe he had access.
21.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top