Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · Dec 28, 2006, 01:26 PM

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1581344

I brought it in for two small warranty items, a jammed trunk, and a bad antenna, on 12/19/06. and told them not to drive it off the lot, and the next morning, Gene B, an employee, took it on a ride and wrecked it, causing about $15,000 in damages to the front passenger side. The chp report #marin chp 9350, officer Pozzi, lists the driver as driving too fast for the conditions which caused the accident. An accident is something that's unavoidable. This was pure careless acceleration out of a turn, trying to pass on the right shoulder, into the gravel, and he spun out donut style, and got run down by some poor box truck, which was also damaged due to this guy's careless negligent driving. Now I'm going down to make my $829 monthly payment, and my new vette, is sitting in the body shop, wrecked. The dealer is refusing to replace the car or compensate me for the lost value on resale.

Pic!

zro · Dec 28, 2006, 01:29 PM

The dealer needs to own up for it and the guy who stole the car needs to be punched in the face by a gorilla.

Blasphemy · Dec 28, 2006, 01:29 PM

Take him to court or sue the employee who was joy riding.

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 01:31 PM

The dealer is obviously in the wrong.

sek929 · Dec 28, 2006, 01:37 PM

Wow, apesh!t is to soft of a word for what I would go on Gene B

::maroma:: · Dec 28, 2006, 01:44 PM

How in the hell can the dealer refuse to pay for this incident?? It was an employee of the dealer who took it for a joyride, right? Then its the damn dealers responsibility to deal with the damages.

And I agree, the driver should be severely beaten about the head and neck with a blunt object.

Eug · Dec 28, 2006, 01:54 PM

From the sounds of it, the dealer may be covering the repairs, but:

"The dealer is refusing to replace the car or compensate me for the lost value on resale."

IOW, the owner now wants to get rid of it (cuz it's worth less after the accident), but the dealer says they won't pay for a replacement, or cover the loss if they sell the car.

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 01:56 PM

This thread needs more Gos/Sek/Dakar chatter.

sek929 · Dec 28, 2006, 01:58 PM

You rang?

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 01:59 PM

Just kidding. I wouldn't do that to Eug.

sek929 · Dec 28, 2006, 02:00 PM

I can see them not giving him an entirely new car, but they should def cover the cost of repairing it.

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 02:01 PM

I think his point is their recklessness has hurt the car outside of the cost of repairing it.

sek929 · Dec 28, 2006, 02:03 PM

Yep, completely.

I think this guy is going to have to take some asses to court to get any satisfaction.

Gossamer · Dec 28, 2006, 02:12 PM

I completely agree with everything that's been said here.

olePigeon · Dec 28, 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

How in the hell can the dealer refuse to pay for this incident?? It was an employee of the dealer who took it for a joyride, right? Then its the damn dealers responsibility to deal with the damages.

Originally Posted by sek929

I think this guy is going to have to take some asses to court to get any satisfaction.

He can't do anything. When you sign that form indicating what they're going to fix, it's often also a consent form that the autoshop can not be held liable for any damage done to your vehicle.

My stepmom's Porsche was stolen right out of the place she was having it worked on and there was nothing she could do about it.

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 02:15 PM

22 posts to go until a new addition in the Clinically Insane family.

sek929 · Dec 28, 2006, 02:16 PM

Well then, after the facts have come in I'd say a lead pipe would be his only recourse.

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 02:17 PM

olepigeon or the corvette owner?

sek929 · Dec 28, 2006, 02:21 PM

Both, they could buy the pipe in bulk and save some money.

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 02:24 PM

That's using the ol' noggin.

imitchellg5 · Dec 28, 2006, 02:27 PM

I'd beat the crap out of that employee. Jeeze. I'm the only one who goes joyriding in my car.

Gossamer · Dec 28, 2006, 02:29 PM

But his car cost a fair amount of money, therefore it is a penis extension.

mitchell_pgh · Dec 28, 2006, 02:37 PM

Am I the only one that thinks that doesn't look like 15K worth of damage? It's a 2005 corvette... [generally in the $35K to $45K range]

In my opinion, the owner of the car isn't being realistic.

He wants either:
a) a brand new car (to replace his 2+ year old car)
or
b) the dealer to repair the car AND give the him money to compensate for the potential loss of revenue upon resale.

Also:
- the driver was not cited for reckless driving
- "it takes 100mph in a 25mph zone for them to cite" isn't true.

I'm not saying the dealer shouldn't compensate at all, but it looks like the owner is trying to profit off of the situation.

Gossamer · Dec 28, 2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Am I the only one that thinks that doesn't look like 15K worth of damage? It's a 2005 corvette... [generally in the $35K to $45K range]

The value of the car has little to do with the cost of the damage. That's why so many 8-10 year old cars can get in a minor accident and get 'totalled' by the insurance company (I've heard of cars getting totalled because a vandal busted all of their windows). Since it's fiberglass, allllll of it's going to have to be replaced, not to mention we don't know about damage to the underpinnings of the car. Fifteen thousand is a lot but I wouldn't call it unreasonable. But it is quite possible that wherever he went to get a quote knew that the payment would come from a dealer's insurance, so they were generous with the quote.

Eug · Dec 28, 2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Am I the only one that thinks that doesn't look like 15K worth of damage? It's a 2005 corvette... [generally in the $35K to $45K range]

In my opinion, the owner of the car isn't being realistic.

He wants either:
a) a brand new car (to replace his 2+ year old car)
or
b) the dealer to repair the car AND give the him money to compensate for the potential loss of revenue upon resale.

Also:
- the driver was not cited for reckless driving
- "it takes 100mph in a 25mph zone for them to cite" isn't true.

I'm not saying the dealer shouldn't compensate at all, but it looks like the owner is trying to profit off of the situation.

I don't think he's trying to profit. I think he's royally pissed. And he has every right to be.

The resale value of that car WILL go down because of this. I too would want to be compensated for this.

macintologist · Dec 28, 2006, 02:45 PM

I hate opportunistic prosecutions just as much as the next guy. The repair shop should pay for the repairs and that's it. The owner should have been more careful when he signed that liability release form.

Eug · Dec 28, 2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

I hate opportunistic prosecutions just as much as the next guy. The repair shop should pay for the repairs and that's it. The owner should have been more careful when he signed that liability release form.

Some dealers will pay for the repairs AND provide some additional compensation (although it wouldn't fully cover the depreciation caused by the accident).

That would be especially justified in this case, because it was friggin' joyride.

Dakar² · Dec 28, 2006, 02:51 PM

Exactly. Any sympathy or understanding one might have for the dealer's situation goes out the window in this kind of ridiculous scenario.

Gossamer · Dec 28, 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

I hate opportunistic prosecutions just as much as the next guy. The repair shop should pay for the repairs and that's it. The owner should have been more careful when he signed that liability release form.

Is there a record of him signing a release form, and exactly what it entailed? Also, he gave specific instructions for it not to be taken off of the lot. The dealership/worker was needlessly careless. I'd place the blame on them.

andi*pandi · Dec 28, 2006, 03:07 PM

damage from a garage I would just accept and forget about: small dings, scratches, dirt on the floor, the radio being changed.

All else the dealer is liable for. If they want my business again.

Gossamer · Dec 28, 2006, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

damage from a garage I would just accept and forget about: small dings, scratches, dirt on the floor, the radio being changed.

All else the dealer is liable for. If they want my business again.

Dirt on the floor, radio being changed, sure, those are reversible. Dings (not likely with fiberglass

) and scratches, no way would I put up with those on a $45,000 car. Heck, I'd be ticked off if the garage scratched my $2000 car.

imitchellg5 · Dec 28, 2006, 03:37 PM

Yeah, dings on Corvettes are very expensive to fix, if you can fix it at all.

Edit: With that much damage, I think he would need the entire front end replaced, as well as the fender. I would kill that guy.

Chuckit · Dec 28, 2006, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

I hate opportunistic prosecutions just as much as the next guy. The repair shop should pay for the repairs and that's it. The owner should have been more careful when he signed that liability release form.

Release forms allowing the dealer to completely destroy a car with impunity should not be considered valid.

andi*pandi · Dec 28, 2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Dirt on the floor, radio being changed, sure, those are reversible. Dings (not likely with fiberglass

) and scratches, no way would I put up with those on a $45,000 car. Heck, I'd be ticked off if the garage scratched my $2000 car.

well, more to the point, I'd be hard pressed to PROVE that the dings/small scratches happened in the garage and not in the parking lot at Starbucks 5 minutes before I dropped the car off. With my old car, I don't even do a walkaround when I pick it up to check for these things. Should I be?

mitchell_pgh · Dec 28, 2006, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Exactly. Any sympathy or understanding one might have for the dealer's situation goes out the window in this kind of ridiculous scenario.

It's a "ridiculous scenario" because we are hearing only one side of the story.

We have no idea what the guy considered acceptable compensation for the vehicle depreciation. Also, after posting that information on the web nine days after the accident, I wouldn't even bother trying to work with him.

I've had people accuse me of "stealing their logo" because I wouldn't send them a specific version (which would have required me to work on it a good bit) AFTER they stiffed me over $2000! I'm sure if you talked to them, I was the bad guy.

Gossamer · Dec 28, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

well, more to the point, I'd be hard pressed to PROVE that the dings/small scratches happened in the garage and not in the parking lot at Starbucks 5 minutes before I dropped the car off. With my old car, I don't even do a walkaround when I pick it up to check for these things. Should I be?

That's a good point. If a dealership started taking responsibility for little stuff like that they'd get scammers in there all the time trying to get previous door dings fixed. A late model owner would have a much better case though.

mitchell_pgh · Dec 28, 2006, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Release forms allowing the dealer to completely destroy a car with impunity should not be considered valid.

But this isn't the case. The dealer is repairing the vehicle.

If you hire me to paint your house, and I smash my truck through the house... I sure hope you don't expect me to buy you a new house.

The fact that the owner even considered that the dealer would replace the vehicle makes me laugh.

Gossamer · Dec 28, 2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

But this isn't the case. The dealer is repairing the vehicle.

If you hire me to paint your house, and I smash my truck through the house... I sure hope you don't expect me to buy you a new house.

The fact that the owner even considered that the dealer would replace the vehicle makes me laugh.

The problem is that they've done irreparable damage to the car. Because they can't "unwreck" it, he's going to lose money, and this is due to negligence on the dealer's part. I don't think they should replace it but I do think he's entitled to some compensation beyond fixing the visible damage.

KeyLimePi · Dec 28, 2006, 04:44 PM

I took my car to a garage once. They diagnosed the problem, said they'd have to order the part and I should bring it back in a couple days. I did, and left it there on my way to work. They called that morning to say the wrong part arrived. I picked my car up that evening and was told they correct part should be in soon.

On the way home I found an ATM receipt on the floor. It was not from my bank at it was dated that afternoon. I turned around, went back and asked why my car had been driven to an ATM. He said it was probably being "tested." I told him there was no need to test it since the part was not installed. He balked, I yelled, and in the end I took it someplace else. I was pretty pissed to know that someone used my car to run errands. I can only imagine how hot I would have been if it had been wrecked.

Sky Captain · Dec 28, 2006, 04:46 PM

They DO owe him the diminished value of the car. That is the law.
State Farm got sued by not figuring this into their claims.

THe owners's insurance will cover the car.
The driver IS liable for the deductable and can be charged with theft of the automobile.
How does the Captain know this?
Some jackass did pretty much the same thing with my wife's Porsche.
They found the money after I threated to press charges.

Rumor · Dec 28, 2006, 05:52 PM

Update

As of 12 noon today, 12/28/06, I talked to the dealer, Greg James. He promised to make us whole, and provide a comparable car with the same color scheme and option group. He said it would take about a week to go through. He gave me a heartfelt apology. He seemed sincere and genuine. If he comes through as promised, he should get a pat on the back, as legally, he does not have to do this thing.

I believe this was a misunderstanding on his part. An occupational hazard. When you have thousands of cars coming through your lot, I think you tend to forget what this car means to the common man. It's the poor man's ferrari; and I don't believe that rich people own these cars. Poor people buy them, after scraping and suffering and working hard for every dollar for years and years.

It was you people who reminded him. You reminded him this car is not just a car. It's a special thing, the last american icon in the automotive world. We looked forward for many years, with a lot of passion, lurking on the forums, without ever posting. We waited for seven months for our car to be delivered as ordered. We could not belive how smooth it was. How fast it was. (Sorry chp for speeding.) How it handled.

Eug Wanker · Dec 28, 2006, 06:49 PM

It's amazing what a little bad press will do.

Nonetheless, the dealer does deserve credit for coming thru on this finally.

Rumor · Dec 28, 2006, 06:54 PM

Well, he hasn't yet but says he intends too.

It's only fair.

imitchellg5 · Dec 28, 2006, 06:55 PM

That makes me happy that the dealer is going to replace the car. I would demand no less.

macintologist · Dec 28, 2006, 07:38 PM

I think you tend to forget what this car means to the common man. It's the poor man's ferrari; and I don't believe that rich people own these cars. Poor people buy them, after scraping and suffering and working hard for every dollar for years and years.
...
You reminded him this car is not just a car. It's a special thing, the last american icon in the automotive world.

Who cares what country the car is made in? If it's a good car, it's a good car. If it's shite, it's shite. I personally like BMW, not because it's German, but because they make fantastic cars.

olePigeon · Dec 28, 2006, 07:43 PM

This reminds me of Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Eug Wanker · Dec 28, 2006, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

Who cares what country the car is made in? If it's a good car, it's a good car. If it's shite, it's shite. I personally like BMW, not because it's German, but because they make fantastic cars.

BMWs are generally nice cars, but they don't generally have a great reputation for reliability.

macintologist · Dec 28, 2006, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

BMWs are generally nice cars, but they don't generally have a great reputation for reliability.

As long as you don't say it's because they are German then I have no problem with that statement.

Blasphemy · Dec 28, 2006, 08:03 PM

BMW isn't reliable

Otherwise I generally like German products. I even like their women, mostly, though they also have a horrible reputation.

Eug Wanker · Dec 28, 2006, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

As long as you don't say it's because they are German then I have no problem with that statement.

Heh no.

At least in North America, it seems that BMWs tend to have more issues requiring repair than say average Lexus' or Toyotas. The US/Canadian cars (including Chevrolet) tend to be less reliable as well. However, it various by model of course, and you can get a lemon in any car.