Dealer totals customer's ZL1

In reply to Datsun1500:

Those are two distinct situations. We accept risk by driving our cars, even if that risk is of having to deal with an insurance company and wind up with a repaired car. In exchange, among other things, we get to be super-vigilant and avoid wrecks that might not be "our fault" but would be inconvenient.

In this case, he entrusted the dealership with his car, and it was destroyed under their watch. This was not a transaction which should have entailed any risk for him.

I'm not 100% convinced of what the outcome should be, or that we've heard a completely accurate representation of either side, but I do see a distinction between having it totaled in the owner's possession vs at the dealer. If they can't give him back exactly the car he brought in, any difference should at least be in the owner's favor.

My two cents; I'm not under any delusions about understanding what the law says in this case.

mndsm wrote: THIS guy wants a brand new 2014, revised ZL1 for no out of pocket. What he had was a used camaro, not a new camaro. He gets a used camaro in return.

Ya, but the "apples to apples" is not "one that has been in an accident or repainted". That's BS.

In reply to HiTempguy:

Oh don't get me wrong, you're right on that. What he should get in return is a comparable not previously wrecked 2012 ZL1. A repaint/previously smashed one is not ok.... SO- if the dealer truly DID offer him a smashed one, nuts to them. It sounds like there might be a bit of foul play afoot on both sides of this one.

I can see how he would not want a used one, even if it wasn't in an accident. He bought the car new, maybe in a color he liked, and knows exactly how the car has been driven. With a used car, you really don't know, and maybe it isn't really optioned to his liking.

I would think that the dealer should offer him a new car, of the exact configuration at a slight cost (to cover depreciation). If he is short on cash, give him a very good financing option (0%). Taking something off the difference would also seem reasonable for consideration of the trouble he has gone through.

aircooled wrote: I can see how he would not want a used one, even if it wasn't in an accident. He bought the car new, maybe in a color he liked, and knows exactly how the car has been driven. With a used car, you really don't know, and maybe it isn't really optioned to his liking. I would think that the dealer should offer him a new car, of the exact configuration at a slight cost (to cover depreciation). If he is short on cash, give him a very good financing option (0%). Taking something off the difference would also seem reasonable for consideration of the trouble he has gone through.

Honest question- replace "ZL1 Camaro dream car" with "2007 Mazdaspeed3". In all senses, a used boyracer car. I bought it with 13 miles on it. I know my dealer won't berkeley me, because I know literally EVERYONE in the service department... but if one of their tech goobers decides to go out and hot foot it to see how well the coilovers work- and wrap it around a pole, would you think the dealer would be on the hook for a 2014 (yes I know a 2014 ms3 doesn't exist) ms3? I would expect them to replace it and and all the parts on it with a comparable one, but the bottom line is, it's a used car. Were this not some high falootin' fancy Camaro, and a more pedestrian vehicle... we wouldn't be reading about this. I'm truly NOT trying to stir E36 M3 here, I'm just wondering if a lot of the bias is due to the collectible nature of the car in question.

Datsun1500 wrote: If I was the dealer, with all of the bs he is causing, I'd just take the line of "the guy that wrecked it, stole it, and it's between you guys, go after him, I'm done"

That is exactly what the dealership did. Though I have never known the courts to accept that arguments when it is a employee of the dealership and not an actual thief.

This has happened a good number of times in the Viper world and it never has ended well for the dealer.

Someone in management handed Crash the keys to the shop?

According to the parts I skimmed, Mr Crash had the keys to the shop and presumably the keys to get at the car keys, thus the charge they think they can make stick is one of "unauthorized use of a vehicle" and not GTA. According to one of the posters who seems to know a little about these things, the former is supposedly still a felony.

wearymicrobe wrote: That is exactly what the dealership did. Though I have never known the courts to accept that arguments when it is a employee of the dealership and not an actual thief. This has happened a good number of times in the Viper world and it never has ended well for the dealer.

The part I don't get from the owner's side is that several people pointed that out to him. However, he refused to get a lawyer (along the lines of "why should I pay for a lawyer, it's not my fault") whereas the dealership clearly had legal advice.

I'm pretty sure if he'd lawyered up very soon after this, a good lawyer might have explained the way this was going to head to the dealership's lawyer. Usually lawyers are pretty good at suddenly hashing out a deal.

Ransom wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: Those are two distinct situations. We accept risk by driving our cars, even if that risk is of having to deal with an insurance company and wind up with a repaired car. In exchange, among other things, we get to be super-vigilant and avoid wrecks that might not be "our fault" but would be inconvenient. In this case, he entrusted the dealership with his car, and it was destroyed under their watch. This was not a transaction which should have entailed any risk for him. I'm not 100% convinced of what the outcome should be, or that we've heard a completely accurate representation of either side, but I do see a distinction between having it totaled in the owner's possession vs at the dealer. If they can't give him back exactly the car he brought in, any difference should at least be in the owner's favor. My two cents; I'm not under any delusions about understanding what the law says in this case.

This +100

BIG plus one to TR8todd.

In my case, the dealer OR Honda NA could've taken a $1000 hit on a NEW trans vs. a used one, and done it quickly and apologetically. I would've said "Cool. Accidents happen. We're good."

Instead, they fought me every step of the way over $1k for a berkeley up that was 100% their fault.

I've cost them, no berkeleying question, way more than that since then...JUST talking to people with Hennessy Honda stickers on their car...at the gas station, in the grocery store parking lot, etc. And people who've known me as a "Honda guy" for years, and asked for suggestions on which new Honda to buy, have gotten the response: "None of them."

I know, without a doubt, that I cost Honda the sale of a new Pilot. Works for me. And I'll continue to berkeley them six ways to Sunday till the day I die.

Kicker: They never paid Hertz...the one inside their dealership, for my rental. Now Hertz is coming after me.

Anyway, yeah, good opportunity for another dealer to get some great PR, regardless of what makes the victim "whole."

I've had a handful of big-time berkeleyups in ten years of business, and my first question to the customer is "What can I do to make this right?" Not "This is what the law requires me to do to make you "whole."

Adrift wrote:

Ransom wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: Those are two distinct situations. We accept risk by driving our cars, even if that risk is of having to deal with an insurance company and wind up with a repaired car. In exchange, among other things, we get to be super-vigilant and avoid wrecks that might not be "our fault" but would be inconvenient. In this case, he entrusted the dealership with his car, and it was destroyed under their watch. This was not a transaction which should have entailed any risk for him. I'm not 100% convinced of what the outcome should be, or that we've heard a completely accurate representation of either side, but I do see a distinction between having it totaled in the owner's possession vs at the dealer. If they can't give him back exactly the car he brought in, any difference should at least be in the owner's favor. My two cents; I'm not under any delusions about understanding what the law says in this case.

This +100

Okay, so what if the incident had been at a restaurant while the car was being valet parked? Should the restaurant fork over a brand new 2014 to replace a used 2012? Careful; the legal precedent is the same, permission to operate the vehicle for business purposes was given to a third party.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen stuff happen in the dealership world more than once. I've handled cars damaged in the shop more than once. Nothing new under the sun.

The guy is entirely within his rights to not accept a salvage title car (I wouldn't) but to demand the keys to a new 2014 in exchange for a depreciated 2012? Maybe doing this would call off the Internet hounds but it's still a case of the owner being paid off for being an opportunistic prick which IMHO is about 99% of what's wrong with this world now.

In poop's transmission case there's a bit of a difference: as part of their franchise agreement the dealership cannot modify the terms of Honda's warranty, therefore they can't say Honda would warranty a used transmission nationwide. The right thing for them to do would have been to stick a new or reman transmission in there or rebuild the existing unit so the warranty would stay in effect. A perfectly reasonable request, IMHO. The Chevy dealer doesn't really have that option, the car is totaled.

TRoglodyte wrote: Someone in management handed Crash the keys to the shop?

I have keys to our entire dealership except the parts department. Standard operating procedure. Not absolving Crash in any way, the jerk should have lost his job. I would NEVER do something like that with a customer's car, and I drive SRT's, Hemi whatevers and $60,000 pickups all the time.

Curmudgeon wrote:

Adrift wrote:

Ransom wrote: but I do see a distinction between having it totaled in the owner's possession vs at the dealer. If they can't give him back exactly the car he brought in, any difference should at least be in the owner's favor.

This +100

The guy is entirely within his rights to not accept a salvage title car (I wouldn't) but to demand the keys to a new 2014 in exchange for a depreciated 2012?

We agree.

There is nothing in the original quote that says the car owner should get a new ZL1. What it says is that he should get exactly what he left in the dealership's care or, if that is not possible, it should be settled slightly in his favor as a matter of good business practice. For example if a clean 10K mile 2012 isn't available, how about a 2013?

I read quite a bit of the owners thread and I didn't see anything where he demands a new car. I may have missed this, the thread is over 30 pages and I didn't read it all. My impression is that he wants the dealer to take responsibility (they wouldn't give his insurance their insurance info) and make him whole. Offering a wrecked car doesn't qualify.

I got to thinking some more about my previous point of a different chevy dealer stepping up and came up with an even better one. How about the Ford dealership up the street stepping up. Guy seems like a real Camaro fan, and probably won't want a limited edition Mustang, but at least throw the offer out there and reap the good PR.

Wow!, Read the whole post. The dealers FB page is getting hammered right now.

I feed bad for the OP, Looks like the Camaro was a bad ass ride...although it was an automatic.

Legal mumbo-jumbo, insurance and associated horse E36 M3 is one thing, Bad publicity is another.

It might be a case of no comparable cars available right now, so they are offering him what they can get.

Giving him a 2013 might work.

The funny thing is that form an insurance point of view, I am betting that offering a car with a sunroof vs. a non-sunroof is a value add to the customer, since that is an option that costs hard dollars.

Would the dealer cost of a new car be significantly higher than what they have a 2012 model listed for on the lot?

A lot of you guys are assuming the car was being driven with the dealers authority as part of the service contract, it was not, it was stolen. You can call it what you want but Joyriding is theft. This changes a lot and means the dealership can be found liable for damages beyond the vehicle destruction.

My .02c

I just read the whole thread (a software deployment at work is taking forever)- it looks like another Chevy dealer has jumped in and asked the owner of the totaled car to contact them. That's an interesting little twist.

Aussie, apparently the police are not calling it theft, they are calling it unauthorized use or something because the guy had the keys.

I do this for a living every day and have been involved in damage repair claims on test drives (no, I didn't wreck anything!) although nothing on this scale.

A signed repair order is a MUST before a dealership employee touches the vehicle. There are no ifs and or buts. No signature, no drive. Tow ins require a notation to that effect, some dealerships stipulate that tow ins cannot be touched until the owner signs a repair order.

Once the owner signs the repair order dealership personnel are granted authority to operate the vehicle for purposes of testing and transport. Otherwise cars would never be road tested before/after a repair because the company's liability insurance (if they have a policy; some are self insuring) won't cover damage in the event of an accident. Even in the case of self insuring the signature is ESSENTIAL; I learned this first hand in a court case dealing with an RX7 Turbo II engine allegedly blown up by some of my people. I E36 M3 you not, the owners' signature on the night drop envelope is what saved the company's bacon and yes he tried to stick us with the bill even though he had ordered and paid for an engine which was sitting in our parts department at the time of drop off! Yes there are crooks and opportunistic bastards everywhere.

So assuming there was a signed RO yes the owner had authorized company personnel (including service writers) to operate the vehicle, the time of day is irrelevant (that's how some cars get test driven overnight by service managers etc although that is VERY rare any more). I realize this is legal hairsplitting but that is the world we live in now. I am in no way excusing the guy who wrecked it, he was definitely in the wrong and he knew it. We cannot abuse this privilege; some years ago a co worker 'borrowed' a customer's car to go grab some mid morning munchies, when pulling out of the BK drive through she got broadsided. The RO was signed etc but the car was there to have special ordered parts installed so she had no real reason to test drive it and she very nearly lost her job. I believe she had to pay the insurance deductible, though. That car was only a year or so old, IIRC the dealership just gave the owner another similar car, i.e. a used car of comparable age and mileage with a similar factory warranty etc NOT a brand new 0 mile version. That 'made her whole', the Camaro owner wants to be made 'better than whole', there's the major difference and that's my gripe with the guy.

The car involved in this is a limited production vehicle, you can't just snap your fingers and produce one. That has a lot to do with the whole problem. Maybe this other dealership will make him 'better than whole' for the publicity, I dunno. That's their business.

An unrelated tangent: when a vehicle is returned to the owner the RO MUST BE CLOSED. An open RO with the subject vehicle out cruising around exposes the dealership to liability even if the owner of the vehicle is the one driving it! No it doesn't make sense to me either but again there it is.

I see both sides to a degree, but the owner of the car purchased a new ZL1 for a reason....he wanted to a specific, specialty car and wanted to be the original owner. A used replacement to does not make him whole.

i didn't see the owner wanting to be made more than whole. he refused 2 cars based on their questionable history and more miles than his.

the camaro forum mob is demanding he be made more than whole.

he boned up by not calling lawyer at 9:xx AM as soon as he got off the phone with the dealer, and instead posting on the interwebs, leading to the dealer getting blasted from all sides. now they are pissed off at him and most certain to lose business from the deal. if someone did that to my business i'd tell them to get effed too and let the lawyer/insurance company deal with it. i'd try to eff them back equally hard. eye for an eye, and while they screwed up, he poked them in the eye first.

In reply to patgizz:

Between waiting 16 hours to say anything and witholding insurance info, I'd call that the first poke in the eye.