Dealer wrecks car - what would you do?

poopshovel wrote: I'm kind of shocked the dealer is taking responsibility. That said, I'm guessing the damage will show up on a carfax. Someone should foot the bill for the loss of value IMHO. Might be worth a $50 phone call to a lawyer. Again though, I think it's cool that the dealer stepped up.

I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't show up on a car fax. Especially I the dealer has an inhouse body shop.

I had a Ford Ranger that was in for an oil change and when the mechanic was lowering the lift the truck fell off. Even though there was frame damage and it was handled through insurance it never showed on the carfax when I traded it in 3 years later.

This all depends on if the installer said it wasn't advised, and your friend said "DO EEEET"......If it wasn't frowned upon, then I could see it being on them. Dealer is only liable because of the actions of their tech. Your friend shares some blame for leaving it in gear.

I've worked for an installer shop for nearly nine years (mostly part time in the last 5) and we have always installed remote starts in manual transmission cars.

It WAS installed incorrectly.

To be installed to avoid the OP's original situation it HAS to be set up with a process to set the remote to be ready for a start. Basically, you pull into your driveway, set the parking brake, put the car in neutral, release the clutch, hit the remote FOB, open the door to get out, and the car shuts down. Therefore the car was in neutral when it was shut down. If at any time a door is opened the system cancels in the event someone inadvertently slipped it into gear.

Sorry but the dealer is going over and above here and he should take whatever they're giving. Especially if the owner failed to inform the dealer (contributory negligence) either with a tag on the key or in BIG letters on the drop box envelope regardless of if they suggested where, when, or by whom to have it installed. If I had a remote start I'd sure let them know every time. Not every employee knows every car.

Datsun1500 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I'm kind of shocked the dealer is taking responsibility. That said, I'm guessing the damage will show up on a carfax. Someone should foot the bill for the loss of value IMHO. Might be worth a $50 phone call to a lawyer. Again though, I think it's cool that the dealer stepped up.

But does the dealer owe him a brand new car, or is fixing the old one enough? I keed, I keed.

Datsun1500 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I'm kind of shocked the dealer is taking responsibility. That said, I'm guessing the damage will show up on a carfax. Someone should foot the bill for the loss of value IMHO. Might be worth a $50 phone call to a lawyer. Again though, I think it's cool that the dealer stepped up.

But does the dealer owe him a brand new car, or is fixing the old one enough? I keed, I keed.

This is actually an interesting point, how will this effect the corrosion warranty?

Does a remote start bypass the clutch safety switch, when installed in a manual transmission car?

And this is exactly why I always put the parking brake on in manual transmission cars.

We had a guy with a 350Z come into the dealer once (well, a tow truck brought him), and he had remote started his car from up in his apartment. A few minutes later a neighbor knocked on his door and said his car was down the street over the curb. He had done the same thing, and he tore up the underside of the car, ripped off the "W" brace, cut the driveshaft in half, etc. I remember thinking to myself, "Who puts remote start on a manual?!"

Anyway, I agree it's nice that the dealer is stepping up at all. If they had been told about it having remote start, then definitely it's on them, but if not, then I agree that your friend should be thankful for whatever he's getting. Hope it all turns out ok!

SnowMongoose wrote:

Driven5 wrote: Would you feel the same way if FM installed their turbo kit for you, but neglected to install the boost controller, and then your engine grenaded the first time somebody took it to WOT?

Apples to Oranges, OP's coworker had something installed correctly but used wrong. Keith isn't going to be happy about your scenario, btw

Nope. Dead wrong. The buyer neglected to demand, and the installer neglected to use the kit designed for manual shift cars, which involves a process of hitting the button while the car is running, applying the parking brake, removing the keys, exiting the car, closing and locking the door, then hitting the button to shut the engine off. If the door is then opened for any reason, the remote start will not function.

Thats the only acceptible way to install a remote start in a manual car. Anything else will eventually have the car driving across a parking lot unaccompanied.

If I were the dealer, unless I had arranged installation of the starter, I'd tell your buddy to pound sand.

Streetwiseguy wrote: Nope. Dead wrong. The buyer neglected to demand, and the installer neglected to use the kit designed for manual shift cars, which involves a process of hitting the button while the car is running, applying the parking brake, removing the keys, exiting the car, closing and locking the door, then hitting the button to shut the engine off. If the door is then opened for any reason, the remote start will not function. Thats the only acceptible way to install a remote start in a manual car. Anything else will eventually have the car driving across a parking lot unaccompanied. If I were the dealer, unless I had arranged installation of the starter, I'd tell your buddy to pound sand.

Is that really how its done now? Sounds excessive when all you would need is a microswitch that's tripped when the stick is in the neutral gate. Easy on any FWD shifter setup.

is it common practice for people that work at dealerships to use the remote start on customer cars? that just seems... lazy... stupid..

MAZDA SUCKS

Oh wait...

I wouldn't be looking to milk the cow.

In fact, I rather think your friend is rather lucky the dealership it stepping up to the plate so nicely. I'd let them fix it, correctly, and move on.

I'm saying your friend is lucky because they could argue that he/she was at fault, leaving them a dangerous vehicle without disclosure, and could actually sue for that. Not saying they would win, but they do have a case that they could take to court.

He should demand a new transmission with a full warranty.

I can help on this one...this is right up my alley, deal with it every day.

It's going to fall under what's called garagekeepers coverage for the dealership, so it's not the dealership themselves that will pay for it. Your friend can go to his own insurance if he wishes and isn't comfortable with the dealers' insurance company. Many people are afraid of that and say "Why should I have to use my own insurance when it's their fault?" Not to worry, his insurance would pay the claim then collect the money back from the dealers' insurance, so the net payout is zero.

Regarding diminished value, there is no hard and fast rule on that. Every insurance company handles it differently. I could make an argument that it doesn't exist, and if it did you don't really lose anything until you actually sell the car. For example, I'm responsible for setting the diminished value policy for my company. When a claim for it is made, we look at the age of the car, the mileage, the severity of damage and the value of the car prior to the loss. So if it's a 2001 Ford Focus with 145k miles, we're not going to make any offer. A 2013 Rolls Royce with 80 miles (got one of those yesterday), different story.

Racer1ab wrote: Seriously, what kind of pansy can't drive across a parking lot without letting a car cool down first? Kids these days.

and why would someone expect the AC would be left on ?

Klayfish wrote: Regarding diminished value, there is no hard and fast rule on that. Every insurance company handles it differently. I could make an argument that it doesn't exist, and if it did you don't really lose anything until you actually sell the car. For example, I'm responsible for setting the diminished value policy for my company. When a claim for it is made, we look at the age of the car, the mileage, the severity of damage and the value of the car prior to the loss. So if it's a 2001 Ford Focus with 145k miles, we're not going to make any offer. A 2013 Rolls Royce with 80 miles (got one of those yesterday), different story.

In my experience the insurance company won't pay diminished value, and will fight like heck to keep from paying it. They're standpoint is if you sold the car now, the diminished value would be $X. 10 years from now with 250,000 miles what's the diminished value then? If you're keeping the car, and it's repaired properly, there is no way to calculate diminished value.

Just a follow-up with more details:

Apparently the dealer took the car from the lot where the owner left it, and brought it inside to do the service. He says when he left it the car was in neutral, with e-brake on. They had no trouble taking it into the bay to do the work.

Apparently AFTER it was in the bay and had already been driven by the dealer, the guy started the car with the remote starter and it ran across the bay and hit a tire mounting machine and a rack or something.

Not that it matters, just figured I'd follow up :)

Allowable damages vary from state to state but generally, the dealer is to return the vehicle in the same condition after the "bailment" to the owner. Loss of value is generally not a consideration in the repair of the vehicle.

In reply to irish44j:

well, it does matter.

essentially, the dealer said, "Oh, crap. sorry, I messed up. lemme fix this."

instead of, "Oh, I didn't know you had that in there.. you shouldn't have left it set like that, but I will cover the damages anyway."

In reply to irish44j:

Agree with SCARR. This totally changes things and makes it TOTALLY the dealer's fault.

It actually doesn't matter. It was damaged while in the care, custody and control of the dealership. Their coverage will kick in regardless.

car39, You're right in that there is no real way to calculate diminished value. It really depends on the insurance company as to how much they offer and how they come up with it.

Funny thought: it would have had less damage if it were the base model because it would not have accelerated as quickly! Sad to hear, but glad the dealer is stepping up.

foxtrapper wrote: I wouldn't be looking to milk the cow. In fact, I rather think your friend is rather lucky the dealership it stepping up to the plate so nicely. I'd let them fix it, correctly, and move on. I'm saying your friend is lucky because they could argue that he/she was at fault, leaving them a dangerous vehicle without disclosure, and could actually sue for that. Not saying they would win, but they do have a case that they could take to court.

Big +1

Remote start on a manual trans is just asking for trouble.

Datsun1500 wrote:

novaderrik wrote: is it common practice for people that work at dealerships to use the remote start on customer cars? that just seems... lazy... stupid..

Many remote starts are programmed to the unlock button on the factory remote. He might not have known it was even there. There's a good chance he was walking to the car, hit the factory unlock button (which is perfectly normal to me) and the car started.

Not to take this off on a tangent. I looked into having remote locking on my Classic Saab 900. The guys at the car audio place were insistant I get remote start. When I told them that the car locks in reverse with the key out.. they told me that could bypass that.

I walked

remote start?