Originally Posted by Banshee
Here is the way I see this...
Said employee has access to the facility (Chevrolet dealership) where you, in good faith and trust took your vehicle in condition "A" for paint work under GM warranty. GM warrantied the paint, thus under provisions of licensing and warranty, the dealership, under the scope of rectifying a warranty issue was being repaired at a GM AUTHORIZED dealership and was going to be compensated by GM for the reparis, which, unless there is a specified clause, GM is partially responsible because GM would have compensated the dealer for the paint flaw under warranty.
The fact that the dealership was closed, the service writer opened a locked and closed for business dealership with the specified intent to take your ZL1 for a joy ride. That fact, on it's face is THEFT or otherwise known as unauthorized use of an automobile. In Michigan this is called unlawful driving away of an auto or UDAA. The mere fact that the service writer entered the GM dealership in itself is questionable and debatable, YOU nor the dealership specifically authorized the removal of your vehicle from the property for any reason. Whether damage was incurred or not, this is still a criminal issue.
Where this becomes an issue is that damage was incurred. Specified intent, use and damage solely rests, IMO, upon the dealership for a. hiring the person, b. not securing the keys for the customer, and allowing access to a closed dealership. The service writer is an agent of the dealership and the dealership is fully responsible for any incurred damage.
Lets look at another scenario...you take your ZL1 in for an engine issue, while on the lift, and the engine running, the lift fails and falls 6 feet to the ground, the engine grenades and caused the vehicle to be a total loss. Well, your ZL1 was within GM property/dealership....the dealer is responsible for making you WHOLE. By WHOLE means not giving you a ZL1 with the exact or less mileage than the vehicle you, in good faith, expected it's return to be within standards of service. You bought a NEW ZL1. You deserve a NEW ZL1, not a "comparable" replacement.
In my opinion, and although I am not a lawyer, I am a 24 year career police officer with MANY hours in court, I believe GM should sanction the dealership in question as the firing of the offending employee is "damage control" to satisfy the consumer who's vehicle was damaged beyond repair. I believe GM is liable to a certain extent as a company but the majority of the burden is upon the dealer to criminally file charges against the employee for breaching any written rule he violated by entering the dealership and removing the vehicle.
You voluntarily and knowingly sold 2 cars to get a new ZL1. This is a FACT. Your sacrifice and decision led you to take delivery od a NEW ZL1 the way you ordered it.
In order for you to be made whole, by law is for you NOT to get a COMPARABLE ZL1, that was used, abused, pre owned or otherwise....But to recieve a NEW ZL1 EXACTLY as you ordered it and took delivery of.
I come to my opinion based on basic common sense.
If perchance someone did the exact same thing to my 2013 1LE Inferno Orange Camaro which incidentally was the LAST IOM built on June 30th 2013, the replacement value is that I would expect AND want the LAST IOM 2013 because that is what I had.
I would never settle for a pre owned ZL1 for a few reasons. I take care of my cars, I chose to drive it and nurture and respect it. I, nor you deserve seconds of anything. If you do choose to take a comparable ZL1, I would consider a cash voucher for an agreeable sum of money, lifetime oil synthetic changes and a service warranty that extends the life of the replacement ZL1 for as long as you own it.
|