Just when you thought it was safe to get your car repaired...

[Custom Hearse]

I think I'd be a tad miffed with the dealership...

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/chevy-camaro-zl1-owner-fights-dealership-totaled-car-170136602.html

Edited January 11, 2014 by Custom Hearse

[1930fordpickup]

If the shoe was on the other foot would the dealership except less for more?

We all know the answer to this.

[Harry P.]

The dealership has offered him a comparable replacement. He refused and said his wrecked Camaro was worth more than the ones the dealer offered to him. Based on what, I wonder?

Sounds to me like the dealer did what they should do, and the guy refused their offer.

[disabled modeler]

Did the guy buy a rebuilt or used car?....They would have to give me a new one...even if they had to have it specially ordered to match the old one...the dealership is responsible for their employee and proper care and safety of the car while there plain and simple. I worked for dealerships before i know what they are responsible for here anyways...besides they have insurance for things like this..just saying.

Edited January 11, 2014 by disabled modeler

[FASTBACK340]

Hate to admit this, but 2 years ago I totaled a customer's car on a road test. The first and only time in over 35 yrs. in the business.

I had a 2010 Infiniti G37 that had a drivability issue. After the repair I had the customers authorization to drive the car home over-night to road test it. On my way into work the next morning I was severely cut-off by an idiot in a Silver Toyota SUV on the Southern State Parkway. It was raining heavily and I hydroplaned into the divider at about 45-50 MPH. Flattened the nose to the timing chain, set off the air bags, scared the ever loving pooh out of me. Because I had authorization from the owner it went through the customers insurance. My dealership stepped up and took care of them on the replacement they bought. I saw no retribution for it. It was an accident, and I felt terrible about it.

Hopefully in this case the details aren't the same where the dealer is offering him a replacement he can buy with his insurance money. When you sign the repair order you authorize the dealerships personal to drive your car. Granted not on a Sunday for a high-speed joy ride, but that may the grey area the Weasels, er… I mean Lawyers might be angling for.

Wonder how it resolves….

Edited January 11, 2014 by FASTBACK340

[Nick Winter]

The dealership has offered him a comparable replacement. He refused and said his wrecked Camaro was worth more than the ones the dealer offered to him. Based on what, I wonder?

Sounds to me like the dealer did what they should do, and the guy refused their offer.

"The dealer was supposed to be finding me a 2013 ZL1 new. They agreed (or so I thought) that it would be for the best since buying a used one (yes, ME BUYING from them) could only lead to problems down the road.

I have been patient. I finally got a call on Monday (1/6) to come over to look at the car they "found" for me. They were sure I would be pleased. Imagine my surprise when the car they "found" turned out to be a trade-in on a new Stingray. The car was a 2012 ZL1, black like mine, but with a sunroof (which I do not want), 34% more miles than mine, new tires (why did it need new tires at 13,588 miles?), different wheels than mine, non-Chevrolet emblems front and back, and tinted windows. Also absolutely NO documentation on the car, even though I was told the car had more documentation than mine.

I was not even told the mileage on the car until I went out and sat in it for myself. Amazing that we had to go over all the figures first. And yes, I was to buy this car from them. They did offer $4K "feel good" (their words, not mine) money to buy the correct emblems and rims. However, nothing was mentioned about a lower price for the higher mileage.

My wife and I just were not that happy with the car. We offered a counter-offer and let the dealership for them to discuss our proposal.

When we got home last night, we discovered through this forum (thanks, guys) that the car was a TWO owner car, not a one-owner car like we were told. We also found out that the car was hit 3 days after the original owner purchased the car. WE paid $55 for a CarFax report--the dealer didn't even offer that for us. They did have some other report, but it wasn't a CarFax.

So they were basically trying to SELL us a 2-owner vehicle that had previous body damage, along with tinted windows, incorrect emblems, more mileage, the apparent need for new tires, and heaven only knows what else.

They called today to tell us that their original offer to buy THAT car from them was ALL they were going to (or willing to) offer. Take it or leave it. We really did not want a twice-used car with no documentation and do not feel it was a reasonable replacement for our show-winning, pristine, fully documented car with much less mileage.

So folks, almost a month later, I am still making payments on a car I do not have, and certainly cannot drive. And the dealer is unwilling to step up and "do the right thing."

I have retained an attorney, but really, why should I have to pay attorney fees when I am the innocent party in all of this. I did not ask for my car to be stolen by a dealer's employee.

The dealer is upset about the negative press they have received, yet they seem unwilling to do anything to remedy the situation.

I guess they will get what they deserve, even if I do not get what I fully deserve (my car replaced at no expense to me).

If this hadn't actually happened to me, I don't think I would have believed it."

From the owner of the ZL-1

[1930fordpickup]

The dealership has offered him a comparable replacement. He refused and said his wrecked Camaro was worth more than the ones the dealer offered to him. Based on what, I wonder?

Sounds to me like the dealer did what they should do, and the guy refused their offer.

The car must have been what they thought was comparable and not the owner. Think of it this way Harry does the steak house tell you your steak is cooked right or do they ask you?

[Craig Irwin]

I'd tell that Chevy dealer I wanted my money back, what I'd payed for it minus the mileage, and I want it quick so I could buy a new FORD Mustang while the 2014's were still out.

[mademan]

I know that when I bought my Camaro , I was very specific in what I wanted.. I did not want the sunroof and I did not want leather. Mine was a nothing car, but it was what I wanted, what I ordered and what I paid for. I took the car in for its first oil change @ 5200 Km (not miles) and while there, the dealership scratched the quarter panel, about 11 inches long. They tried to play it off like it was there when I brought the car in, and refused to cover the repair..... after a fight and reviewing the papers I signed when I dropped the car off, the service advisor had done the walk around and checked that the car was in perfect condition with no physical damage. I was angry.... my brand new car was scratched...... not totalled... but scratched nonetheless. Eventually an employee admitted to scraping past the car with a part, or tool and causing damage.... but "he didn't figure it was that bad" The dealership covered the cost to repaint the panel.

Now I can see why this guy is upset.... first of all his car had no sunroof, so like me he problably likes the "roof dimple" which is not on the cars with the sunroof. Also the sunroof steals headroom, if he is 6ft + like myself...... its annoying having your head rub on the roof. Even if these small issues are not what he has a problem with, he bought a BRAND NEW CAR, and the dealership should replace it with a brand new car.... we aren't talking about a $20k nothing Honda, were talking about a 80K+ collectors car. If his was a `13.... a `12 will not suffice. That is not comparable to his car. Luckily for me living in Saskatchewan, our insurance offers FULL replacement value for the first 2 years of ownership of a brand new car.

[keyser]

The dealership has offered him a comparable replacement. He refused and said his wrecked Camaro was worth more than the ones the dealer offered to him. Based on what, I wonder?

Sounds to me like the dealer did what they should do, and the guy refused their offer.

1. Car had more miles on it than wrecked one.

2. Car represented as 1-owner

3. Didn't have options comparable to wrecked car

4. Carfax on offered car showed 2 owners and accident.

Dealer is idiot. Insurance was 44k. New sticker is 65k. Markup and holdback probably 8%-10%, Incentives on unsold '13 ZL1 prob $1-1500. So, dealer cost on NEW ZL1 is $57k.

Difference between Ins payment and new is $13k. Plus probably a 1% if they finance guy thru them, and get him lower payment.

So for about $12.5K they have happy customer and no lawyer fees.

OR

They can do what they're doing, and spend 5k atty fees, and far greater than 10k of bad advertising. The 44k should be on their insurance. Same as it would if garage burned down.

If I was nearby Chevy store, I'd offer them straight up into new one now. Hundred thousands of eyes will see dealer name, if 3-4 people buy cars, you made up the difference.

Welcome to the Intarwebs, First State Chevy.

And unlike the real accident with the Infiniti, this was mis-use and failure to reasonably secure vehicle.

Edited January 11, 2014 by keyser

[pharoah]

I can't figure out why the so called mechanic wasn't charged with anything. He took a car without permission from a closed dealership.

[lordairgtar]

I would get my hands on my wrecked car from whatever salvage yard it's in, park it on the road with a big sign saying what the dealer did

[Harry P.]

1. Car had more miles on it than wrecked one.

2. Car represented as 1-owner

3. Didn't have options comparable to wrecked car

4. Carfax on offered car showed 2 owners and accident.

real accident with the Infiniti, this was mis-use and failure to reasonably secure vehicle.

None of that info was in the article that's linked to in the first post of this thread.

I should have clicked on the link within the article and read "the rest of the story."

[1930fordpickup]

I can't figure out why the so called mechanic wasn't charged with anything. He took a car without permission from a closed dealership.

That is a great question . The employee should be charged , if not a better explanation should be given. I think it has more to do with the owner having a good friend up a little high in the food chain.

[freakshow12]

Because it wasn't theft. He had keys to where he worked. It's all been covered on the 15 other boards in on. Lol

[jbwelda]

if your attorney is even half worth his salt, you will get your money for your original car in spades, including all his fees, plus a significant payment for "pain and suffering" (eg: inconvenience, waste of time away from family (boo hoo)). its typical that insurance companies (which is essentially who you are dealing with) will play hard ball with "that's our final offer" but they change their tune as soon as they are contacted by an attack dog lawyer when they know darn well they are 100% wrong and the publicity is gonna kill them. sic em perry...

jb

[1930fordpickup]

Because it wasn't theft. He had keys to where he worked. It's all been covered on the 15 other boards in on. Lol

So if I stop by your house and take keys of the counter I can take one of your Mustangs for a joyride? You did let me in the house.

Also if this was not theft then why did they fire said employee?

Edited January 12, 2014 by 1930fordpickup

[Racephoto1]

The dealer is a fool. Sales involves word of mouth. One bad word of mouth kills ten thousand good ones.It's going to cost this dealer a lot of business. He's sorry now , supposedly, but when he sees the drop in sales he'll be more sorry.

[Joe Handley]

I know it's not of at the cost, performance, or rarity level of that Camaro, but I would be furious if that happened to my 200. Probably to the point that I'd demand it's replaced with something comparable (maybe a similar 200 or Avenger program car off the lot or comp me on a similarly optioned 2015 200 once available) and that if they didn't press grand theft charges, I would be!

[dustym]

Back when I was driving a tow truck, I had a call for a stolen recovery. I show up to a 4 runner that was partially in the weeds, with no front wheels and a few other missing stuff. Sheriff has me sign papers and takes off, and I didnt look at them. I get to the back of vehicle and the back wheel werent there and either was the axles.

So any way i was to load up and take to Magic Toyota where it was stolen from while in for repair. I get there and they refused the vehicle, saying it was more damaged then they were led to believe. I take back to our tow yard, and the owner shows up to see his car, and was visably upset. This vehicle then just sits around for week while the insurance battles it out, then the dealership says they are not responsible for theft or damages while on thier lot. It is right on the work order that every customer signs when they drop off cars for almost all repair shops in our area. The owners insurance company gets out of paying, and I was never clear on that, so we tow it to a 4x4 junk yard and they give the owner some money for it. The money he got wasnt even close to what he owed on it, so he did get kinda screwed on the deal.

About a year or so after I left the tow company, the owner of the vehicle trys to sue the tow company because of the police report. He thought I stole the parts the sheriff didnt itemize on the report.

So anyway, in Washington state you gotta watch what you sign for when you leave your property in the hands of others.

[Danno]

It's theft ~ or should be ~ just about anywhere you go. Perhaps the state where this occurred has some screwball laws, but there is a distinction to the "employee" defense: the perp may have had permission or consent to be on the dealer's grounds and in his store, but the perp did not have the customer's permission or consent to go joy-riding. For the dealer to plead 'no involvement' requires inherently that the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment, so it is clearly theft. If the argument is that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment ('he had the dealer's permission') makes the whole debacle responsibility of the dealer, insurance or not.

Another consideration is that the dealer's insurance may not cover this mess. Most insurance policies exclude intentional acts by insureds or their agents and employees. If the dealer's insurer determined the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment, the insurer might decline to cover the dealer's losses. That could explain the dealer's recalcitrant attitude.

However, most insurers (and the policies they issue) will provide coverage to an innocent third party (the customer/car owner) regardless. They will often then cancel coverage for the insured [the dealer] for the non-compliant behavior and failure to prevent losses such as this.

Any way you slice it, the dealer is responsible. The employee is an irresponsible jerk, but the dealer hired him and gave him access to customer cars.

[NHRA715]

order a new Z28 and call a laywer

[freakshow12]

The state law could not charge him with theft. Employee was fired and only charged with reckless driving and some other bogus thing. Customers option is to sue employee directly. Also insurance offered 45 k and customer said no as he paid 60 in 2012. Cars depreciate! This is screwed up on both sides and I am sure it will be resolved but it will take time and the dealer is not obligated to do any more than what they have done by trying to find him a replacement

[Tom Geiger]

Whenever you lose a car you are going to take a beating. When you buy a new car, the moment you leave the lot, it's a used car. Back around 1977 a guy I worked with bought a brand new Olds Cutlass. He brought it to work and showed it off. It went back to the dealer for some repair the following week. That night the dealership burned down with his car in the service department. Insurance called it a used car, and reduced the price down enough that he couldn't afford to replace it.

[Danno]

Okay. TECHNICALLY what the dealer's employee did is not THEFT per se in Delaware. Delaware is one of the few states that still has screwed up, antiquated laws in some respects, and this is one.

What the employee did was commit the crime of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. Regardless of the amount of damage caused, it is a misdemeanor in Delaware.

DEL CODE § 853 : Delaware Code - Section 853: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE; CLASS A MISDEMEANOR

A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a vehicle when:

(1) Knowing that the person does not have the consent of the owner the person takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses a vehicle;

(2) Having custody of a vehicle pursuant to an agreement between the person or another and the owner thereof whereby the person or another is to perform for compensation a specific service for the owner involving the maintenance, repair or use of the vehicle, the person intentionally uses or operates it, without the consent of the owner, for the person's own purposes in a manner constituting a gross deviation from the agreed purpose;

In Arizona, and most states, that would be a felony.

So, technically, he could not be charged with theft because the theft and the auto theft statutes in Delaware require intent to permanently deprive the owner of his vehicle. This deadbeat was just joy-riding. No theft.

But, he still committed a crime ~ Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle.