RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635

[Rgeezer]

Originally Posted by RedZL1

@Hall of Fame....
Why are you so butthurt, resorting to personal insults on the OP?

It is particularly unwarranted to accuse the OP of "mounting a smear campaign"...seems to me that he factually described what happened on this forum, and the dealer's response has elicited quite a bit of negative reaction that the media/internet has picked up on. The media attention isn't because of the original post, it is because of outrage over the dealer's response. Oh, and while these are "just cars", it's interesting that 1st State Chevrolet _used_ to think these these cars were something special: http://1ststatechevy.wordpress.com/2...-chevy-dealer/

Finally, comparing the misbehavior of a paid employee, in relation to violating his job responsibilities, to any behavior of rental tenants is absurd. Do you think that Exxon could escape responsibility for the Valdez oil spill by saying "sucks to be you, coastal residents...go after the ship captain"?

[idon'tremember]

finally able to get on
have been following this story since it hit yahoo and then followed the sources and ended up here.
btw i HAVE read every post on this thread and have seen some really outrageous replies
facts in this story
j hooper IS an author of SIX books on .......wait for it ...........CAMARO'S
j hooper did trade in a 69 and 2011 camaro on the FIRST YEAR LIMITED EDITION ZL1
which i would think is a pretty good indication that he considered this as an investment and not as just a daily driver
j hooper did drop off his car for warranty work at dealership and signed NO papers waiving damage or theft
dealership did negligently allow j hoopers car to be taken for a joy ride and get totaled by an employee
said dealership told him they were not fixing it and for him to call his own insurance co
at that point is when he should have lawyered up but we all saw what unfolded
the car the dealership offered him was an insult
hopefully now, with gm involved it will work out, he should be out absolutely no money and be made whole.
that is where the problem lies, he can NOT get a "0" owner 2012 ZL1 like he had and as a collector myself i would be damned if i would settle for a two or three owner 2012 car to replace the one owner 2012 that i special ordered
but just in case he isn't as hardheaded as i am there is a 2012 one owner #1640 (5 after his was made) that looks very much like what he had available for $47k
i don't know johns vin # so i am not sure if it is an exact match.......just sayin
nice site guys and gals

[Expunge]

Originally Posted by Hall of Fame

I love mine also, but if they all get destroyed, I go on. And yes, I could be calm till the insurance co. settled with me. They are materialistic items. Replaceable. All this nonsense uproar over a car. Now I do have one other thing to say... To classify the guy who stole the car as trailer trash.... Y'all need to look in a mirror and think you are better than someone else. I deal with rental folks all the time. It is my business. I rent to good hard working folks who live in a Mobile Home Park of mine. It is unrealistic how some on this forum belittle folks living in a mobile home. Profiling without facts. Next time you fire up that Camaro think about how you got it. It sure the hell probably wasn't given to you. Them same folks living in the Mobile homes probably work next to you. BTW that tech wasn't no idiot or he wouldn't have been working at a GM dealership. He just made a bad decision.

Someone who you entrust your car to totals it on a joyride
- then drags their feet about it notifying you
- says to you the customer (and media) they will make it right.
- then offers you 73 cents on the dollar (less when you figure the interest on the loan) for what you paid for it not even two years ago on the best car you have ever owned, especially being the Camaro enthusiast this person has been.

And you wouldn't be pissed? You would settle with the insurance company then examine your options? To that I say F' that. When you are wronged on this scale.. no, that is simply unrealistic. You want what you drove to the dealership in, not something inferior.

As to the trailer park comments who the F' cares.

[TheReaper]

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.

This sums it up IMO.

[oldfriend]

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.

With all the respect , you are not right , ( didn't say wrong ) on just about all of your assumptions , let's say that I have a 2012 ZL 1 with 50k in for warranty service , the same shit happen , should GM get me a new car , just because it was in for under warranty service , NO
No one cares if anyone's car was the last one for that color , tires size , door handle installed by a guy that worked his last shift after 45yeas on the shop
And about the other goods to feel good , garbage .

[Hall of Fame]

I imagine some of you folks would sue God if an earthquake swallowed your car while parked filling up at the service station.

[LeroyZ28]

I have read at least 90% of this entire thread. And i haven't seen much about the Bank being involved. I noticed where the OP is still making Bank Payments. At least where i am when you get a Car Loan you get insurance included in the loan.

So where is the Bank during all this? They Definitely gotta be on his side. They got Lawyers too.

I think when the OP purchased the car,..it was NEW. I wouldn't want someone else's used car. Its just not right.

[Bad@ssCamaro]

Originally Posted by Hall of Fame

I imagine some of you folks would sue God if an earthquake swallowed your car while parked filling up at the service station.

If I were you, I would let it go. Your insensitivity to the issue is not helping.

[Mcarltonjr]

Originally Posted by Bad@ssCamaro

If I were you, I would let it go. Your insensitivity to the issue is not helping.

He's not going to. Like I said early

[rare991]

Originally Posted by Hall of Fame

I imagine some of you folks would sue God if an earthquake swallowed your car while parked filling up at the service station.

he's just trying to get a rise out of everyone. you guys know what to do!

[Banshee]

Originally Posted by oldfriend

With all the respect , you are not right , ( didn't say wrong ) on just about all of your assumptions , let's say that I have a 2012 ZL 1 with 50k in for warranty service , the same shit happen , should GM get me a new car , just because it was in for under warranty service , NO
No one cares if anyone's car was the last one for that color , tires size , door handle installed by a guy that worked his last shift after 45yeas on the shop
And about the other goods to feel good , garbage .

We are talking apples and oranges here.

Wrong or right?

A company policy was breached AND criminal law broken. The consumer has every right to be made whole. By being made whole depends on condition of vehicle at time of warranty service. 10k miles is a NEW car. a 50k on the odometer 2012 ZL1 costs $16,535 less than a 10k on the odometer ZL1.

The MERE fact of mileage AND condition plays a very integral part of this. Consumer protection is just that. ABSENT any criminality or breach of dealership rules, the consumer may agree to what he agrees to. HOWEVER, CRIMINAL law AND dealership policy was violated in the destruction of this members vehicle....which, on it's face, entitles him to agree to nothing less than a NEW ZL1.

[TannerJPowell]

Something not really addressed yet... since the dealer started practicing the five D's of dodge ball, the OP has incurred a legitimate need to hire a lawyer to remind the everyone of their legal responsibilities and limitations.

Now, in addition to losses related the car, he has incurred out of pocket expenses to assist in securing restitution for the car.

Meanwhile, the "neutral party" that started the war, the lawyer / insurance adviser who advised the dealer to tell the OP take it or leave it, is benefiting from paid work created by his own crappy advice. In all fairness, the adviser probably said something like, "you don't LEGALLY have to pay him anything".

Whatever the case, the dealer is suffering and their liability is growing while the insurance companies liabilities are fixed... so long as the dealer takes no additional responsibility for the incident? I don't see why else the dealer would not have just paid this except the case that they cannot legally make full restitution without it being considered and admission of responsibilities?

Maybe the insurance companies have a significant contribution to the calamity, being that it's yet resolved.

[idon'tremember]

I imagine some of you folks would sue God if an earthquake swallowed your car while parked filling up at the service station.

absolutely not, would sue the service station for having pumps that were too slow, not allowing me to fill up faster and get the hell out of there

[Hall of Fame]

Originally Posted by Bad@ssCamaro

If I were you, I would let it go. Your insensitivity to the issue is not helping.

Not insensitivity, just reality. All this chatter about what the dealer did wrong. Well, it will go no farther than a few emails to them, they will erase.. that is about it. Not too many I suspect live in that area to affect purchasing any new cars from them in the future. So where is the damage to the dealership that the OP started? He got a lot of folks riled up to find out.. absolutely not too much will change from Geico's offer. Maybe , just maybe Geico will reconsider and get him another car. Guess what, if that car isn't good enough for him the owner has to make a big decision. To sue his insurance co. for the difference he has to prove in arbitration. Monday morning the dealer is open, selling cars and moving on. This whole fiasco that happened hoping enlightened folks that their car is not worth what they think it is unless they have classic insurance that will pay them an agreed amount should any disaster happen. However some classic car companies may not insure your car unless it is a special edition. I wish him all the best.