RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635

[PQ]

I still think there are things we do not know.

[Scott@Bjorn3D]

Originally Posted by Todd in Vancouver

WOW, when GM posts that the dealer needs to "gift" a new Z28 to the OP then I can imagine the dealer is getting some heat on this. I've worked in the car industry my whole life and for most of it in new cars at the manufactures level. The manufacture carries the bigger hammer here and while they can't make the dealer do something they don't want to they can make their life difficult. I've seen more than a few times manufactures penalize a dealer by performing "audits" to charge them back $100K's as a smackdown.

That is just a website, it is not a GM owned site so GM has nothing to do with it and they can't. US franchise law prohibits GM getting involved.

[Bell040]

Originally Posted by PQ

I still think there are things we do not know.

What else is there to know?

Mr. Hooper still doesn't have a new ZL1. This happened last month.

this is a total FAIL by First State, First State's insurance company, and GM

[daveincllc]

Originally Posted by jhoop302

On Sunday, December 15, 2013, my prized 2012 Camaro ZL1 took its last breath at 4:47 pm. The car was at the dealer in Georgetown, DE for paint issues (under warranty). It had been locked in the service bay over the weekend. On Sunday afternoon, an employee of the dealership (service writer) entered the locked building, removed the keys to my car from the service department, and went on a joyride. The car was totaled when he lost control and sheared off a telephone pole.

The dealership informed my wife and I on Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. of our loss. Yes, they waited over 16 hours to tell us about our car. I am sure they discussed the incident with their attorneys prior to calling us.

It is now Friday, the car has been officially totaled by the insurance company, and the dealership is telling us it is not their problem. They even refuse to provide my wife and I (and our insurance company) with their insurance information.

I traded in my 2011 SS2 Camaro and sold my 1969 Camaro SS in pristine condition to buy the ZL1. I will never be able to afford another new ZL1, and basically I don't think I should have to be put in the position to have to buy a new one. We trusted the dealership to use vigilance while our car was in their possession. We can't even have charges pressed against their employee for theft because the car was not in OUR possession when stolen.

Something about this whole thing just doesn't seem right. What would you do if this was your baby?

I was a EMS that night here are more pictures from the accident

[rebelyell22]

Originally Posted by daveincllc

I was a EMS that night here are more pictures from the accident

My God....... Did the joyrider get hurt?

[daveincllc]

Not a scratch

[Bell040]

this is now the 3rd most viewed thread in the ZL1 section

[DarrenJ]

Hansen, President of First State Chevrolet, has a statement posted on the dealership homepage stating his "sorrow" for what occurred and that the insurance companies were "working it out". How about this, Mr. Hansen, why don't you step in and make it right before the bad press destroys your company, your dealership and all the jobs it's created for the good employees you have there?

[hawk02]

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.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by hawk02

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.

Agreed.

The argument here, and what has everyone at the stance they have, is that the 'Former Employee' was a 'Current Employee' during the incident.

Albeit, after hours and unauthorized.

Maybe businesses should start charging employees for things they mess up on the job? Or take any revenue loss out of employee paychecks equally? This way everyone can have accountability equally. After all, when does the burden of accountability shift? Answer: ONLY when it can land on someone else. Especially when it's the business owner.

[Mr pogo]

Originally Posted by hawk02

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.

perhaps you suffer from business ethics autism.

[DarrenJ]

Why should the OP's insurance be responsible when he left it in the care, custody & control of the dealership with whom he had professional faith that his car would be properly taken care of? It's the dealership's responsibility to make sure their employees are properly vetted and if not, they should have the proper professional liability coverage on the DEALERSHIP to handle this bad situation, it shouldn't be up to the owner's insurance to cover it, the dealership employee HAD ACCESS TO KEYS! If you don't want people in a position of trust, DON'T GIVE THEM KEYS! If you do, prepare to face the consequences...

Yep, GEICO may be screwing him on the value of his ZL-1, also. I'm sure I wouldn't sell my ZL-1 for that price and if I could find one like the OP's for that price, I'd be on a plane tomorrow to pick it up.

[scoticus.rex]

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.

I don't believe the OP has asked for a new car. He sat down with the dealer when they offered to sell him a replacement and kick in 4k "good faith" money. The problems with that negotiation was the dealership failed to provide any documentation on the replacement vehicle. When the OP researched it, it turned out to have higher mileage, cheap aftermarket parts, be in need of new tires, had two previous owners and had a previous accident with body damage. I don't know about Delaware, but in most states its against the law for a dealer to sell you a used car and not inform you that it has been in an accident. So of course he turned them down. It would be one thing if the dealership had offered to get him a similar vehicle to the one he lost for around the price of the insurance settlement, it is quite another for them to try to hand him damaged goods and hide its history. That is simply not dealing in good faith. I personally think it would have been good business strategy for them to simply have given him a new ZL1 in return for signing over whatever settlement the insurance companies eventually settle on. Would have saved the dealership a lot of lost revenue and heartache. But to try to screw the guy over by trying to sell him a car and not disclosing an accident on it, and claim that is meeting their obligation to him, that is just stupid. At this point, the dealership is getting what it deserves... a lot of very bad press which will likely result in a lot of lost sales.

[TheReaper]

The OP bought the car NEW and it was destroyed while in possession of the dealership. The destruction was not an act of God. Why should he have to settle for a used car that someone else drove for 10k miles ?