REVscene Automotive Forum

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Auto Chat (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-auto-chat_173/)
-   -   GM employee crashes customers ZL1, refuses to pay (https://www.revscene.net/forums/691850-gm-employee-crashes-customers-zl1-refuses-pay.html)

slicrick 01-09-2014 10:21 PM

GM employee crashes customers ZL1, refuses to pay
 
Camaro5.com GM Employee crashes customer car on joyride full thread

OP's post
Spoiler!

twitchyzero 01-09-2014 10:26 PM

and they wonder why the gov't needs to bail them out :lol

320icar 01-09-2014 10:29 PM

Shit man. I'd lawyer up as fast as i could
Posted via RS Mobile

pb.kidz 01-09-2014 10:34 PM

'murica

donjalapeno 01-09-2014 10:36 PM

what the fuck....thats bullshit

JSALES 01-09-2014 10:36 PM

that's bullshit for the owner, I'd get a lawyer right away especially if I had to sell a '69 Camaro SS

meme405 01-09-2014 10:47 PM

Wow what a great read.

All I can say is FUCK that dealership and their half witted employee.

Hope the OP has his way with them.

I love stuff like this, because it shows the power of the automotive community.

320icar 01-09-2014 10:47 PM

Here was an update. Even more shit LOL

Spoiler!

Posted via RS Mobile

JSALES 01-09-2014 10:52 PM

^ LOL just digging themselves in a deeper hole

fliptuner 01-09-2014 10:53 PM

The dealership could've got some good AND cheap advertising if the just fired the guy who stole it and bought the guy a new car.

dared3vil0 01-09-2014 10:58 PM

Lawyer up, like yesterday.

Jas29 01-09-2014 11:07 PM

Hopefully Scott Settlemire (Fbodfather) gets involved and gets everything right.

He was really helpful on that forum when the 2010 Camaro first came out

TOPEC 01-09-2014 11:21 PM

well dealer says its not stolen cus it was not in the owners possession during the time of accident, so clearly the car must've been in the dealers possession so its their fault so they're liable for everything, id use that point as one of the points to argue with the dealer

maxx 01-10-2014 12:22 AM

i dont know how it is in usa, but here the car would under the garage policy of the dealer, they would simply claim it under their insurance. if they refuse, you sue for millions.

HondaGuy 01-10-2014 12:44 AM

That totally sucks for the owner, as he keeps paying monthly bills for a car that doesnt exist.
Should at least fire the employee and offer a new car and apologize.

This story reminds me of a local shop that had their employee/sponsored car overnight and some trouble arised with break-ins overnight and next day the boss said not their responsibility to him. Employee had no way to compensate from employer...

Best of luck to the zl1 owner
Posted via RS Mobile

nns 01-10-2014 05:28 AM

Quote:

It's been three weeks since an car dealership employee totaled Debbie and John Hooper's sports car. They're out a car and still making payments on it, and now they doubt the dealership will ever get them a limited-edition Camaro similar to the pristine collectible they once owned.

“We're not asking for a million dollars, we're really not,” said John Hooper of Long Neck, a published author on Camaros who says they are his passion.

In November, John and his wife Debbie took their 2012 Camaro ZL1 to First State Chevrolet of Georgetown to fix an ongoing paint problem. That was the last time they would ever drive the car.

On Dec. 16, the dealership called to inform them a joy-riding employee had taken the sports car out for a spin Dec. 15 and crashed it on Zoar Road.

Now, the Hoopers said, they are just trying to get a car comparable to the brand new vehicle they purchased in 2012 and had meticulously cared for.

“The fact of the matter is we bought the car as a collectible car,” Debbie said. “It was going to go to our granddaughter, and it may have even paid for a year of college.”

Two Camaros the dealership offered as replacements are not comparable to what they lost, John said.

The latest was the same year and model but had 3,000 miles more, and it's wheels were less expensive than those on the original car. Even with a $4,000 cash offering, he said, it didn't compare with what they lost. Then Debbie found out from a Camaro website that the car had previously had two different owners and had been involved in an accident. They definitely weren't interested after that, she said.

First State salesman Chuck Ricker said he's tried to find a car to replace the one totaled by the dealership employee.

“It's a terrible tragedy, and they should be put back where they were,” he said.

Following the crash that totaled the Hoopers' car, Delaware State Police charged Eric Peterson, 42, of Georgetown with careless driving and failure to have insurance identification in possession. Debbie Hooper said police told her that she could not file theft or any other criminal charges against Peterson because the car was in the dealership's possession at the time of the accident.

Bob Hansen, co-owner of First State Chevrolet, said Peterson also would be charged with unauthorized use. A magistrate judge told Hansen that Peterson could not be charged with theft because he was a dealership employee with a key, Hansen said. Peterson no longer works at the dealership, he said.

“He's going to be charged with as much as we could charge him with,” Hansen said.

In 2012, Hansen said the Hoopers bought the brand new, limited-edition vehicle from First State for about $56,000. At the time of the accident, he said, the vehicle had about 10,000 miles on it.

Hansen said he feels confident that there are models with comparable mileage available to replace the Hoopers' car, and he wants to help them find a replacement.

“But if they want to go up to a brand new 2014, it's going to cost them something,” he said. “They're not going to get a brand new car.”

After determining the Camaro was totaled, the Hooper's Geico adjuster estimated the car was worth $44,176 – a much lower price than the nearly $60,000 the couple paid.

Hansen said he has liability insurance, but would not comment on whether that would cover any of the expenses incurred when the Hoopers' car was in the dealership's care.

“I have no further comment,” he said. “We're still negotiating.

In the meantime, Debbie Hooper said they continue to make payments on a vehicle they will never drive again.

She said they met with an attorney this week, but was told they are entitled to no pain and suffering, lawyer or court costs.

“It's going to end up costing us more money if we go forward with the attorney,” she said.

The Hoopers said they have been driving a loaner car from First State with a cracked windshield since their car went in for the paint problem. While they said they appreciate the loaner vehicle, they would rather have their old car back.

“We're losing sleep over this, time off for work and this still isn't resolved,” John Hooper said. “This is so ethically and morally wrong it isn't funny.”
No deal yet over wrecked Camaro - By Melissa Steele - CapeGazette.com - Covering Delaware's Cape Region - Inland Bays, Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Milton, Dewey Beach, USA

Presto 01-10-2014 06:44 AM

Quote:

Hansen said he feels confident that there are models with comparable mileage available to replace the Hoopers' car, and he wants to help them find a replacement.

“But if they want to go up to a brand new 2014, it's going to cost them something,” he said. “They're not going to get a brand new car.”
Fuck that shit dealership. They'll be paying for a brand new 2014. They just don't realize it, yet.

freakshow 01-10-2014 06:54 AM

Quote:

Now, the Hoopers said, they are just trying to get a car comparable to the brand new vehicle they purchased in 2012 and had meticulously cared for.

“The fact of the matter is we bought the car as a collectible car,” Debbie said. “It was going to go to our granddaughter, and it may have even paid for a year of college.”

Two Camaros the dealership offered as replacements are not comparable to what they lost, John said.

First State salesman Chuck Ricker said he's tried to find a car to replace the one totaled by the dealership employee.

In 2012, Hansen said the Hoopers bought the brand new, limited-edition vehicle from First State for about $56,000. At the time of the accident, he said, the vehicle had about 10,000 miles on it.

Hansen said he feels confident that there are models with comparable mileage available to replace the Hoopers' car, and he wants to help them find a replacement.

“But if they want to go up to a brand new 2014, it's going to cost them something,” he said. “They're not going to get a brand new car.”

After determining the Camaro was totaled, the Hooper's Geico adjuster estimated the car was worth $44,176 – a much lower price than the nearly $60,000 the couple paid.
Tried to snip out some of the important parts of the article.

This owners are delusional if they think that car was going to be collectible that would be for their grandaughters education..

It's unclear from the article, but the dealership (or their insurance), owes them the value of the car ($44k), nothing more.. it sounds like the owners are now just dragging the dealer through the mud making them find them a new car as well, and rejecting whatever they bring up.

melloman 01-10-2014 06:57 AM

I don't understand though, why the victim is:

A) Still paying monthly fee's for a car that is written off. (He a moron?)

B) Why his attorney has let him continue contact with the dealership?

The only contact I'd have with the dealership, is throwing stones through every window of the building and every car on the lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freakshow (Post 8396889)
It's unclear from the article, but the dealership (or their insurance), owes them the value of the car ($44k), nothing more.. it sounds like the owners are now just dragging the dealer through the mud making them find them a new car as well, and rejecting whatever they bring up.

I wouldn't except anything other then a duplicate of the car I had owned either.. I'd drag them through prickle bushes if they tried to SELL me a car with no information, higher mileage, and lots of things I don't want and need to eventually pay money to replace.

white rocket 01-10-2014 07:41 AM

I'd imagine they are still paying for the car as they have not yet settled the insurance claim. Until the claim is paid out they are responsible for the financial contract. I'm also guessing that the dealership doesn't want this accident to hit their fleet/garage policy as their premiums will increase(garage policies as hella EXPENSIVE).

The owner will need to negotiate harder with Geico to try and increase their payout amount. Once that amount is reached the dealership should offer the difference to at least pay off their contract. At least then the couple is not making payments on a car they is totaled. Once that is settled the couple can continue to search for a new ZL1(not through the original cunty stealership though) that meets their expectations.

z3german 01-10-2014 08:01 AM

wtf is wrong with people.....

lowside67 01-10-2014 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melloman (Post 8396891)
I don't understand though, why the victim is:

A) Still paying monthly fee's for a car that is written off. (He a moron?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by white rocket (Post 8396902)
I'd imagine they are still paying for the car as they have not yet settled the insurance claim. Until the claim is paid out they are responsible for the financial contract.

Bingo. They are responsible for that loan until it is paid off - period, regardless of whether the car is drivable or not. If and when the car is written off and the claim is closed, the insurance company forwards a cheque to the finance company and pays it off, payments go away.

***

Everybody who is talking tough about the dealership owing them a brand new 2014 would be in for a crash course in the law when it came time to settle your claim. The purpose of insurance is to return you to the state you were in, as best as is possible - not to upgrade you. If your car is a 2012, your insurance is paying for you to get another 2012, like it or not. If your car is new (or has new car replacement), you are paying for an upgrade to a new model despite your car not being.

TLDR:

The dealership owes them a comparable condition 2012. I don't expect that the guy is obligated to take an accident car or something like that, that's not fair, but to say he should get a brand new one since he took better care of his car than the average one is simply not relevant and no different than ICBC telling you to go get bent when you tell them to buy you a brand new 2014 BMW because nobody could have possibly treated a 2012 as well as you did.

Mark

Great68 01-10-2014 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowside67 (Post 8396916)
***

Everybody who is talking tough about the dealership owing them a brand new 2014 would be in for a crash course in the law when it came time to settle your claim. The purpose of insurance is to return you to the state you were in, as best as is possible - not to upgrade you. If your car is a 2012, your insurance is paying for you to get another 2012, like it or not. If your car is new (or has new car replacement), you are paying for an upgrade to a new model despite your car not being.

TLDR:

The dealership owes them a comparable condition 2012. I don't expect that the guy is obligated to take an accident car or something like that, that's not fair, but to say he should get a brand new one since he took better care of his car than the average one is simply not relevant and no different than ICBC telling you to go get bent when you tell them to buy you a brand new 2014 BMW because nobody could have possibly treated a 2012 as well as you did.

Mark

While the dealership/insurance might not be financially obligated to upgrade them to a new 2014, the $15,000 difference is going to seem like pittance compared to the negative publicity the dealership is getting and loss of future sales.

Who is going to want to buy cars or service cars at a dealership that hires people who take unauthorized joyrides and total customers' cars?

If the dealership knew what's good for them, they'd just buck up, take the hit, and look like good guys in the eyes of the public.

jasonturbo 01-10-2014 09:22 AM

They shouldn't be dealing with the dealership, they should be talking to coporate IMO.

jpark 01-10-2014 09:28 AM

Just following through that thread,
OP is mentioning that the GM of the dealer is offering him another used ZL1 but with 34% more mileage, multiple owners and accident history (as opposed to his bran new ZL1 that was written off). On top of that he is mentioning that he still has to pay for all sorts of fees and gas guzzler tax?
I would probably go insane lol


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net