RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635

[Explit Player]

You outta threaten to take this to your local news. Then they will shit bricks and give you what you want

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[130R]

Originally Posted by Msmall143

I have no sympathy for the dealership being dragged through the mud. OP trusted them and his car and it ended up totaled, it's important for other customers to know this happened regardless of what their response was or who is fully to blame.

Just out of curiosity, and because this kind of response fascinates the hell out of me, consider the scenario I laid out earlier.

A friend leaves his car with you on a Friday to work on because he knows you're a good mechanic, and you tell him it will be ready Saturday morning. You work on the car and finish it Friday evening. Just to be sure nothing happens to it while it's in your care, you lock the car in your garage over night.

In the middle of the night, someone brakes into your garage and torches your friends car.

Should your friend drag your name through the mud? I mean, your friend trusted you and now his car is totaled. It's your fault right? You're a dick, right?

Let me guess, if that happened to you, you wouldn't buy your buddy a new car. You probably wouldn't file a claim on your insurance. You'd probably ask him to file it with his insurance. You wouldn't feel like an ass, because you did everything you could to protect his car and something happened that was outside of your control.

Am I wrong on any of those assumptions?

[Padre]

Originally Posted by 130R

Just out of curiosity, and because this kind of response fascinates the hell out of me, consider the scenario I laid out earlier.

A friend leaves his car with you on a Friday to work on because he knows you're a good mechanic, and you tell him it will be ready Saturday morning. You work on the car and finish it Friday evening. Just to be sure nothing happens to it while it's in your care, you lock the car in your garage over night.

In the middle of the night, someone brakes into your garage and torches your friends car.

Should your friend drag your name through the mud? I mean, your friend trusted you and now his car is totaled. It's your fault right? You're a dick, right?

Let me guess, if that happened to you, you wouldn't buy your buddy a new car. You probably wouldn't file a claim on your insurance. You'd probably ask him to file it with his insurance. You wouldn't feel like an ass, because you did everything you could to protect his car and something happened that was outside of your control.

Am I wrong on any of those assumptions?

Yes, just modify your scenario a bit: "In the middle of the night, your son enters the garage with your keys, takes your friend's car for a joy ride, and totals it."

Padre

[jm88]

There is the right thing to do in these situations and the evasive, hide behind your lawyer thing to do.

[Padre]

FWIW, I spoke with my dealer this morning (he comes to my church), and ran the situation by him.

It's a no-brainer. The dealer should have thought of publicity first and done everything to make it right by the customer. My dealer says he has insurance for such cases, not just loss replacement, but "sh@t happens" insurance.

It sounds like the OP may have been a bit difficult, but I would be too in this situation, and the dealer should have expected it and not doubled down when the OP didn't respond like an angel.

I would add that messaging the culprit on FB is a bit too stalky to me. Stick to public means and don't come off like a hormonal teenager.

Padre

[130R]

Originally Posted by Padre

Yes, just modify your scenario a bit: "In the middle of the night, your son enters the garage with your keys, takes your friend's car for a joy ride, and totals it."

Padre

That's an ENTIRELY different scenario… Your son is your legal responsibility 24/7. An employee is not… The dealership was closed. The employee wasn't on the clock or being paid. He's not the dealerships responsibility when he's off the clock.

Had the service manager been testing the vehicle, on the clock, and crashed the car in a negligent manner (ie: doing doughnuts in a parking lot), the dealership would absolutely be on the hook.

That didn't happen here…

Trust me. I hate dealerships as much as the next guy. But the dealership did nothing negligent according to the facts as stated by the OP in his first post.

Could the dealer have handled it better? I don't know. Keep in mind the car was stolen on a Sunday afternoon. The car wasn't totaled out by the insurance company until that Friday, the day the OP posted. Not much time to work things out, don't you think?

[heymatt]

I'll play.
If I didn't tell my friend his car got torched for a day or so till I called my insurance co to find out if I was covered. Then told him he's SOL cause my home owners doesn't cover his car on my property for vandalism damage. And I know who did it but I won't prosecute him.I'd expect him to come unhinged.
If I let someone who has a key to my house take his car and it was wrecked it would be on me. Because I failed to safeguard his property while in my care.
A car dealership that would have high end or performance orientated cars on their property, entrusted to them, from either an owner or from the manufacturer. Should, from a common sense standpoint, take extra measures to safeguard the vehicles.
This would include screening of employees and securing keys during off hours.
Which is why they carry insurance. But above and beyond that, as a business owner, the customer has to come first!
Businesses thrive on word of mouth and good publicity. This is a PR nightmare.
I'd have made sure the owner had the oppurtunity to order a new car and write it off as a loss. Whatever was lost in profit would be made up in sales from the good publicity generated from doing the right thing.
And make it known, that due to procedurale changes, this could, and would not happen again.

[jm88]

Originally Posted by 130R

That's an ENTIRELY different scenario… Your son is your legal responsibility 24/7. An employee is not… The dealership was closed. The employee wasn't on the clock or being paid. He's not the dealerships responsibility when he's off the clock.

Now there is an interesting question: How did an off duty employee gain access to the dealership (alarm codes, they had to be alarmed) and it's secured keys? Did the dealer really take proper safeguard measures or were their security measures lacking? It could be argued their lack of security was responsible.

[Padre]

Originally Posted by 130R

That's an ENTIRELY different scenario… Your son is your legal responsibility 24/7. An employee is not… The dealership was closed. The employee wasn't on the clock or being paid. He's not the dealerships responsibility when he's off the clock.

Had the service manager been testing the vehicle, on the clock, and crashed the car in a negligent manner (ie: doing doughnuts in a parking lot), the dealership would absolutely be on the hook.

That didn't happen here…

Trust me. I hate dealerships as much as the next guy. But the dealership did nothing negligent according to the facts as stated by the OP in his first post.

Could the dealer have handled it better? I don't know. Keep in mind the car was stolen on a Sunday afternoon. The car was totaled by the insurance company that Friday, the day the OP posted. Not much time to work things out, don't you think?

OK, change it: your ADULT son.

Point is, it wasn't a random someone. The dealer has additional responsibility because he gave the guy the keys to the fort, i.e. the culprit did not break in. Thus the unauthorized use charges and not grand theft auto.

Look at it this way: it would be an entirely different situation if a random someone *had* actually broken into the dealership.

Padre

[scoticus.rex]

Your comparing apples and oranges and some of your assumptions are incorrect as well.

First, in the scenario you describe, an outside criminal, one the homeowner has no association with, breaks in and does damage. That person, if caught, can be charged with the crime.

In the scenario at hand, regardless of which side you take, the dealer was associated with the offender. They vetted this person and trusted him with the keys to the facility. As a business, they have a level of due diligence and responsibility associated with this individuals actions. Technically, unless they have some form of training document that states they instructed the employee that conducting "test drives" on his own during off duty hours was against the rules, then they can be held liable for his actions. My guess is they do not have this sort of documentation which is probably why the individual could not be charged with even the lesser offense of "unauthorized use."

In the scenario described, not that it is particularly relevant since the homeowner did not have a contractual obligation to the car owner, nor was the offender someone, in your scenario, that the homeowner had any sort of supervisory relationship with, the homeowners insurance would be responsible for the damages to the vehicle. This is exactly what the car owner's insurance company would tell them as well.

And yes, if the homeowner obstructs the process, etc. the the friend would most likely and justifiably drag his name through the mud. I am sure you can find many real world instance of something similar happening between friends.

Finally I would tell you as someone whose wife owns a business. Occasionally, not often, but occasionally, a customer's property gets damaged when she or more often than not, one of her employees, is working with it. When that happens, my wife bends over backwards to fix or replace the items in question. This is almost aways a substantial loss compared to the value of the work my wife was undertaking, but it is the right thing to do and she always does this. It is the right thing to do and it is why her business has a great reputation in her industry.

So while on some levels, I do have sympathy for the dealership, I also feel they handled this entirely wrong. Additionally, I don't agree with your analogy below. Probably the fastest way they could handle this at this point would be for both parties to agree to arbitration and then sit down in a room and hash out an equitable agreement.. Short of that, this is going to be a 6 month long public relations nightmare based on the dealership's initial action or inaction. Padre is correct. The smart thing to do would have been to think through the public relations aspect and then just bend over backwards to make it right for the customer. At the end of the day, they would take a short term loss, but the long term, strategic outcome, would have been much better.

~Rex

Originally Posted by 130R

That's an ENTIRELY different scenario… Your son is your legal responsibility 24/7. An employee is not… The dealership was closed. The employee wasn't on the clock or being paid. He's not the dealerships responsibility when he's off the clock.

Had the service manager been testing the vehicle, on the clock, and crashed the car in a negligent manner (ie: doing doughnuts in a parking lot), the dealership would absolutely be on the hook.

That didn't happen here…

Trust me. I hate dealerships as much as the next guy. But the dealership did nothing negligent according to the facts as stated by the OP in his first post.

Could the dealer have handled it better? I don't know. Keep in mind the car was stolen on a Sunday afternoon. The car wasn't totaled out by the insurance company until that Friday, the day the OP posted. Not much time to work things out, don't you think?

[130R]

Originally Posted by heymatt

I'll play.
If I didn't tell my friend his car got torched for a day or so till I called my insurance co to find out if I was covered. Then told him he's SOL cause my home owners doesn't cover his car on my property for vandalism damage. And I know who did it but I won't prosecute him.I'd expect him to come unhinged.
If I let someone who has a key to my house take his car and it was wrecked it would be on me. Because I failed to safeguard his property while in my care.
A car dealership that would have high end or performance orientated cars on their property, entrusted to them, from either an owner or from the manufacturer. Should, from a common sense standpoint, take extra measures to safeguard the vehicles.
This would include screening of employees and securing keys during off hours.
Which is why they carry insurance. But above and beyond that, as a business owner, the customer has to come first!
Businesses thrive on word of mouth and good publicity. This is a PR nightmare.
I'd have made sure the owner had the oppurtunity to order a new car and write it off as a loss. Whatever was lost in profit would be made up in sales from the good publicity generated from doing the right thing.
And make it known, that due to procedurale changes, this could, and would not happen again.

You too are making a lot of assumptions.

Where in the OP's post does it say when the dealer was notified? The car was stolen on a Sunday afternoon, when they are not open for business. The OP was contacted first thing Monday morning, when they are open for business.

What am I missing? Why are those facts twisted into such a big conspiracy?

Where in the OP's post does it say the thief had a key?

How do you know what the dealers safeguards are?

How do you know the employees aren't screened?


Amazing. But yeah, by all means, continue to chastise the dealership based on one side of the story, and with as few facts as possible...

[130R]

Originally Posted by jm88

Now there is an interesting question: How did an off duty employee gain access to the dealership (alarm codes, they had to be alarmed) and it's secured keys? Did the dealer really take proper safeguard measures or were their security measures lacking? It could be argued their lack of security was responsible.

These are all good questions that will come out in time. And I guess this is my point. People want the owner burned at the stake without knowing all the facts.

Before 911 we thought we were doing a pretty good job of airport security. Sometimes something needs to happen before we know we can, or have to do better.

[Padre]

Originally Posted by scoticus.rex

The smart thing to do would have been to think through the public relations aspect and then just bend over backwards to make it right for the customer. At the end of the day, they would take a short term loss, but the long term, strategic outcome, would have been much better.

~Rex

Imagine: this thread would have been titled, "Coolest Dealer Evar!!!"

We would have consoled John on his loss, been amazed that the dealer was such a stand-up guy, and ooh'd and awe'd at his new ZL1. And no one would be stalking their Google ratings or FB pages.

Padre

[jm88]

Dealerships are obviously corporations. Corporations have a responsibility to reasonably safeguard property when it is in their custody and control. The specifics while relevant to Attorneys aren't relevant when it comes down to doing the right thing. The employee was interviewed, vetted, trained and trusted. There should not have to be a paragraph in a Handbook telling him not to do what he has been accused of doing. It's like saying don't walk into your bosses office, drop your pants and urinate on his desk. Certain things any reasonable person KNOWS is unacceptable.