Quote:
Originally Posted by Hall of Fame
I cannot believe some of the postings... I guess it isn't surprising knowing what society has created by the "Entitlements ". Seems everyone wants to sue someone and think they are entitled to more than they have. I do know one thing... it isn't causing the dealership any hardship and it shouldn't. Man bought a new car for 60k or so.. drives it 10k and wants them to buy him a new one. Horse manure. Just because he THINKS he has the dealership for some kind of a mistake they made. What if the place caught fire, tornado ripped it to Kansas. The same result.. simply an insurance claim. Who gives a rip what kind of car it was? I support the dealership in their decision how to handle it and frankly it is out of their hands. That is exactly what Insurance is for. Let him sue the Geico Lizard. This whole fiasco has went clear out of control and the owner thinks all the hoopla on the web will get him more. It won't and shouldn't , and IF it does it only shows how ignorant society has become.
|
Finally a voice of reason.
This has always been and will continue to be an insurance settlement. Why the majority feel the owner is entitled to a brand new car is baffling to me.
As HOF pointed out, what if the dealership had been struck by lightning and the place burned to the ground or a tornado came through and destroyed the facilities. Would the expectation still be for the owner to receive a new car. Of course not, he would get an insurance settlement based on the market value of the car at the time of the incident. Why is this any different? This was a random act of a former employee, but it could have easily been a random act of mother nature. I see no difference between the two.
I feel bad for the owner. If this happened to my ZL1, I would be crushed and mad as hell, and you can bet I would never do business with that dealership again. But expecting to be reimbursed more than the insurance settlement seems a bit unrealistic to me.