Dealership Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner And Dealer At War

http://jalopnik.com/dealership-total...eal-1498804012

this has gone viral. hope the owner gets sorted out

yuk, that's a hard one.

Really the guy driving the car should have to pay, he wasn't acting as a employee at time he took it for a joy ride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLACKVE

yuk, that's a hard one.

Really the guy driving the car should have to pay, he wasn't acting as a employee at time he took it for a joy ride.

---

Exactly. As you say, he was not acting as an employee and it was not a standard type of car theft either, the guy had keys.

Even in Australia if someone leaves the keys with a car and it is stolen the insurance company often will not pay out.

One of the reasons most workshops make customers to sign a "job sheet" with the standard "indemnity clause" saying that the vehicle is stored and driven at the customer's risk is to warn them that there can be no insurance in certain (unlikely) events.

I do feel sorry for these people but I can't imagine the dealer's insurance company paying out on this one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLACKVE

yuk, that's a hard one.

Really the guy driving the car should have to pay, he wasn't acting as a employee at time he took it for a joy ride.

---

You could argue that he was acting as an employee though. He didn't break into the dealership and steal the car, he used his company keys to enter the building to access the car. Being given keys to a business by your employer generally means that whenever you enter the premises using them you are doing so in your capacity as an employee of the business. If the dealership really believe that the guy wasn't acting as an employee at the time, then they should have had him charged with break enter and steal offences rather than just firing him.
Rather than the owner dealing with the dealership directly and being at a stalemate a month later, I don't understand why he hasn't just taken on a solicitor and sued the dealership. Let a magistrate sort it out one way or another. Once they receive the court paperwork they may just settle before it goes any further. If it goes to court and the judgement is that the dealer is responsible because he was acting as an employee, then they can give the owner a NEW replacement car and then sue the (ex) employee for the loss incurred.

In Australia the dealer would probably cover the loss through their insurance, who would then sue the employee in civil court for damages due to negligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VYBerlinaV8

In Australia the dealer would probably cover the loss through their insurance.

---

I can't imagine the dealership having insurance to cover such an event.

With the loss of custom they have no doubt experienced now and into the future through all the bad publicity they could have given him a brand new one!! Bad publicity goes a looooooooong way!! :yup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whitels1ss

Exactly. As you say, he was not acting as an employee and it was not a standard type of car theft either, the guy had keys.

Even in Australia if someone leaves the keys with a car and it is stolen the insurance company often will not pay out.

One of the reasons most workshops make customers to sign a "job sheet" with the standard "indemnity clause" saying that the vehicle is stored and driven at the customer's risk is to warn them that there can be no insurance in certain (unlikely) events.

I do feel sorry for these people but I can't imagine the dealer's insurance company paying out on this one

---

so if a car is left at a dealership for servicing & someone breaks in & steals it with the keys, it's not covered? that sounds like utter bull***t to me!

was offered a similar higher spec car plus $5k cash and 4k for dealer to get badges and wheels...

not a good situation, but a very satisfactory offer from the dealer in good time too... take it and run

Just though about this again.

there should be 2 insurance company's involved and a lawyer

One the owner, why haven't they paid out and then claimed against other party.

The dealers, they would go for the driver

The driver would get a lawyer and say work should cover it.

did the owners have insurance??? or is us a bit different

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JT

so if a car is left at a dealership for servicing & someone breaks in & steals it with the keys, it's not covered? that sounds like utter bull***t to me!

---

Nobody broke in Joe. That's where this is complicated, this guy had the keys to the workshop.

If somebody had broken in it would bave been covered as a burglary.
Not saying it's nice, I just know how insurance claims go.


Another common thing is if someone goes for a test drive with a salesman and when they switch drivers the other person drives off
with the car an steals it because the salesman got out and left the keys in the ignition, the dealer's insurance will not cover it.
Seen and heard of it a few times.
A dealer's composite insurance is limited.
Same as any private person can often find that they get insurance claims refused for certain events or things that happen.
It's in the fine print of the old terms and conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matthewfnorbert

was offered a similar higher spec car plus $5k cash and 4k for dealer to get badges and wheels...

not a good situation, but a very satisfactory offer from the dealer in good time too... take it and run

---

not quite. had more miles than the original, no books & been in a prang. so not quite such a great offer if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JT

not quite. had more miles than the original, no books & been in a prang. so not quite such a great offer if you ask me.

---

the other offer was nothing! and after that I imagine years of pain only to find the dealer did not have to pay and the employee was broke...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JT

not quite. had more miles than the original, no books & been in a prang. so not quite such a great offer if you ask me.

---

Not to mention it apparently had all 4 tyres replaced with new, after 13,000 miles - not exactly a sign of a car that's been looked after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCiFiRE

Not to mention it apparently had all 4 tyres replaced with new, after 13,000 miles - not exactly a sign of a car that's been looked after.

---

20000km's out of a set of tyres I'd call normal wear and tear. Much more and they would have to be junk hard tyres or you drive like a pussy

But in saying that. I still believe the owner deserves a new car

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whitels1ss

I can't imagine the dealership having insurance to cover such an event.

---

If it were me I'd be checking to see if my insurance would cover me on the basis of having a clearly identified party to recover the money from (the dealership). This is really no difference to if you had lent the car to a family member and they wrote it off - the insurance still applies.

The big issue with insurance is having someone to chase for the money. I strongly susppect that when the lawyers get their hands on it, that the employee who crashed the car is going to have a very bad day.

After some recent issues I have had with my car I make it very clear the car is not to go for a test drive unless I am present. I take the odometer reading and if I don't trust the place I sit there. I am also installing a blackvue dash cam. It's a shame it has come to this but people just don't respect others cars these days.

Simple question if i was the dealership, what is the cost of the negative publicity to their business! They have had a lot of free advertising globally via socail media and the internet!

Small box mentality!!!

And to top it off, they offered a repaired vehicle to be seen to be doing the right thing!

Good luck to the dealership and hope the owners bend them over and win it. (Assuming all the details are what they are!)

As above, I can't see anybody who has read this story going anywhere near this dealership, servicing or sales. The dealership should be getting them a new car, or paying them out the retail value of the car.

That sort of thing would embarrass the dealer to no end and people will go there because some will not believe the owner of the car. The dealer should either pay up or give like for like. I feel for the owner of the car.

This is one of those stories where we start to understand why the world has lawyers...
End of the day the criminal actions of one person caused this to happen. Note the highlighted word CRIMINAL. Doesn't matter if he worked there or not. He partook in a criminal action to gain access to the car- with his place of employment dragged into it because this guy is a criminal.
It SHOULD be between the car owner and the person who wrote the car off. It's gets more complex because a third party got dragged into it through no fault of their own...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radikl

Simple question if i was the dealership, what is the cost of the negative publicity to their business! They have had a lot of free advertising globally via socail media and the internet!

Small box mentality!!!

And to top it off, they offered a repaired vehicle to be seen to be doing the right thing!

Good luck to the dealership and hope the owners bend them over and win it. (Assuming all the details are what they are!)

---

Some people will no doubt think this way, but I suspect most will realise the dealership got shafted by the criminal actions of their (now) former employee.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't is what it amounts to in this situation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planetdavo

This is one of those stories where we start to understand why the world has lawyers...
End of the day the criminal actions of one person caused this to happen. Note the highlighted word CRIMINAL. Doesn't matter if he worked there or not. He partook in a criminal action to gain access to the car- with his place of employment dragged into it because this guy is a criminal.
It SHOULD be between the car owner and the person who wrote the car off. It's gets more complex because a third party got dragged into it through no fault of their own...

---

and thats why he should take the good offer by the dealer and walk on.... he will get squat from the criminal and months/years of stress

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by planetdavo

This is one of those stories where we start to understand why the world has lawyers...
It SHOULD be between the car owner and the person who wrote the car off. It's gets more complex because a third party got dragged into it through no fault of their own...

---

The car was left in the care of the dealership. The dealership SHOULD be responsible. The dealership SHOULD be covered by their insurance and / or they should be sueing their employee who crashed the car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drizt

The car was left in the care of the dealership. The dealership SHOULD be responsible. The dealership SHOULD be covered by their insurance and / or they should be sueing their employee who crashed the car.

---

Sounds wonderfully easy, but you are wrong.
The employee, by entering the complex when it was locked up and without permission to enter the complex, has broken the law.
He has BROKEN INTO the complex basically- with absolutely no work related reason for being there. He's a criminal!
What this criminal did was use OPPORTUNITY- by having access to the keys to unlock the complex.
This makes it no different to an employee stealing stuff from the business. In that scenario, he would also have had OPPORTUNITY, so HE would have chosen to break the law by stealing stuff. So what if he worked there? A thief is a thief!
In the "real world", people like this get reported to the police, who charge them upon sufficient evidence being found. The business it occurred at it simply the location the crime originated from. Doesn't matter if it's the dealership, a supermarket car park, or the driveway of your grandmother's retirement village.
Harsh perhaps, but hey, the real world ain't all warm and cuddly all the time...
In Australia, you would get this criminal's name and provide it to your insurer- who would then chase the criminal for the money. It's how the real world works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matthewfnorbert

and thats why he should take the good offer by the dealer and walk on.... he will get squat from the criminal and months/years of stress

---

What good offer, there not replacing it with the second hand one for free, there selling it to them.

What I cant understand, is the owners are still paying the finance on it? :doh: stop paying it and let the finance company get involved as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toddler78

What I cant understand, is the owners are still paying the finance on it? :doh: stop paying it and let the finance company get involved as well

---

Then the owners will get black crosses to there name for not paying and will find it hard in the future for more finance.

Hi guys,

I was in the same boat as the poor guys with the ZL1.
Will NOT mention the name of the dealer but I had a brand new VE SSV with under 3000ks on the clock when I took it in to the dealer under warranty for a paint issue. All it needed was the paint protection replied on the bumper after the paint work had a default, something so simple right. I get a phone call from the service manager about 4 hrs later and asking me if I was sitting down. I asked why and he told me that there was an accident with your car, I asked how bad and he told me to come down and have a look at it. So I went down to the car yard and the service manager called them to bring the car down. I asked how the **** did this happen and he told me that the mechanic reversed the car and slammed the rear end into a round solid concrete column (you cant even wrap your arms around it) and push back in at least 400mm right in the middle. And to make things even better, the guy in the car was the guy that smashed it and did not have the balls to get out of the car and apologues for what he had done just sat in the car all that time I was around it.
I did ask for a brand new replacement car but not a chance. By law all they can do is repair it to your satisfaction which I was NOT happy. I went to get some legal advise and was told that as long as they agree in repairing it no matter how long it takes, by law you cant do anything. Didn't see my car for 12 weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R8SVton

Hi guys,

I was in the same boat as the poor guys with the ZL1.
Will NOT mention the name of the dealer but I had a brand new VE SSV with under 3000ks on the clock when I took it in to the dealer under warranty for a paint issue. All it needed was the paint protection replied on the bumper after the paint work had a default, something so simple right. I get a phone call from the service manager about 4 hrs later and asking me if I was sitting down. I asked why and he told me that there was an accident with your car, I asked how bad and he told me to come down and have a look at it. So I went down to the car yard and the service manager called them to bring the car down. I asked how the **** did this happen and he told me that the mechanic reversed the car and slammed the rear end into a round solid concrete column (you cant even wrap your arms around it) and push back in at least 400mm right in the middle. And to make things even better, the guy in the car was the guy that smashed it and did not have the balls to get out of the car and apologues for what he had done just sat in the car all that time I was around it.
I did ask for a brand new replacement car but not a chance. By law all they can do is repair it to your satisfaction which I was NOT happy. I went to get some legal advise and was told that as long as they agree in repairing it no matter how long it takes, by law you cant do anything. Didn't see my car for 12 weeks.

---

All fair enough, but it's important to make it clear that we are talking two VERY different scenarios here, with no real links other than the type of location they originated from.
Yours happened when the vehicle was in the process of having the authorised work performed- so liability for the business is clear- whereas the Camaro was STOLEN from a locked building by someone that used opportunity (access to keys) to steal it- with no authorisation to be there.
I doubt any insurance company insuring the Chevrolet dealer would come to the party insurance wise, as it clearly wasn't a workplace "accident". It was the result of a criminal action by someone not permitted to be there, so it becomes the criminal's problem.
Unfortunately, BOTH the business and the car owner have been shafted by the actions of this criminal. The criminal is the one responsible.

From another forum

Quote:

---

Just a quick update for everyone...

1. I never demanded a new car. I merely stated that I should not HAVE to be forced to buy a new [read "different"] car when mine was totaled through no fault of my own. If I had been driving the car, I would accept the loss.

2. The difference in price between a good, used 2012 ZL1 and a new 2013 ZL1 is only about $5-6K considering rebates, etc.

3. Yes, the OP really was to just let everyone know what happened to #1635 that appeared on the ZL1 registry many months ago.

4. We actually made 3 payments on the car while the car was in the dealer's possession while they tried to figure out what to do about the paint issues [read "left the car there for weeks on end without actually doing anything."] I believe the last time I drove the car was the weekend of October 25, 2013.

5. GM and Berger Chevrolet (Grand Rapids, Michigan) have stepped in and are paving [not paying] the way for a new 2013 ZL1 to be sent to First State Chevrolet for me to purchase.

6. We have apologized to many of the employees at First State for the actions taken by many of the people who have been infuriated by this whole story and have called First State to voice their opinions. Anyone who thinks the dealership has not been affected by all of this must have his head in the sand.

7. We want to thank everyone for their support. We never expected this to take on a whole life of its own. A special thanks goes out to the suppliers who have so graciously stepped up to provide parts at their own expense to help ease the heartache we have experienced in this ordeal.

8. I am not the biggest tech guy out there, and I have never made it a practice to post on forums, don't have a Facebook page, etc. But I do plan to stick around on this forum, and I hope to meet many of you in person at various events.

9. When the situation is resolved, I will post photos of the new car. I understand that it will be about two weeks before the insurance check is cut, the old car is paid off, the new car arrives, and a new purchase contract will be signed by my wife and I for the PURCHASE of our new ZL1.

Thanks,
JRH (jhoop302)

---

Looks like a great result!!!

As is usually the case, everyone jumps on the big, bad dealer, just because he is a dealer, and therefore he must be in the wrong and should pay...
You will find that when the car was booked in to the dealership the owner would have signed a waiver of any responsibility by the dealership, and any loss or damage onus is on the owner.
The fact that a staffer stole the car is really of no consequence - the car may just as well have been stolen by Fred Nurk, as it makes no difference except to cloud the issue, as the car was simply stolen.
Now, had the car been stolen from the local supermarket car-park, or the fore-court of the local servo, would it make any difference?
Of course not. Stolen is stolen and the fact the thief had a key to the premises just made it a bit easier for him.
The dealer still has no obligation to make good, but has made a (clumsy) effort to make good but has handled it poorly .
The owner taking it to the media has certainly helped his cause and he'll end up with a brand-newie, but the dealer will be out of pocket and also out of reputation, despite having no fault and no obligation.

The dealer can sue the thief for damages, although like most thieves there's probably no money to collect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seldo

As is usually the case, everyone jumps on the big, bad dealer, just because he is a dealer, and therefore he must be in the wrong and should pay...
You will find that when the car was booked in to the dealership the owner would have signed a waiver of any responsibility by the dealership, and any loss or damage onus is on the owner.
The fact that a staffer stole the car is really of no consequence - the car may just as well have been stolen by Fred Nurk, as it makes no difference except to cloud the issue, as the car was simply stolen.
Now, had the car been stolen from the local supermarket car-park, or the fore-court of the local servo, would it make any difference?
Of course not. Stolen is stolen and the fact the thief had a key to the premises just made it a bit easier for him.
The dealer still has no obligation to make good, but has made a (clumsy) effort to make good but has handled it poorly .
The owner taking it to the media has certainly helped his cause and he'll end up with a brand-newie, but the dealer will be out of pocket and also out of reputation, despite having no fault and no obligation.

---

Exactly man that's where the avg Joe excepts what's put in front of him & signs off on it!! I'm a little different I actually read the Doc. & have been known to cross out & remove certain terms from their agreement!! A few times both of us have agreed to walk away! But that certainly sorts out the good from bad quickly & I certainly won't give in!!! Had many others who have agreed & had good outcomes!! Remember the Consumer is in the Box seat & does not always have to except the terms if they're paying.

At least they are sticking it up First state Chevrolet with a fake web page, they deserve every thing they get bad coming their way.

LOL!

https://www.facebook.com/Wewreckedazl1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seldo

As is usually the case, everyone jumps on the big, bad dealer, just because he is a dealer, and therefore he must be in the wrong and should pay...
You will find that when the car was booked in to the dealership the owner would have signed a waiver of any responsibility by the dealership, and any loss or damage onus is on the owner.
The fact that a staffer stole the car is really of no consequence - the car may just as well have been stolen by Fred Nurk, as it makes no difference except to cloud the issue, as the car was simply stolen.
Now, had the car been stolen from the local supermarket car-park, or the fore-court of the local servo, would it make any difference?
Of course not. Stolen is stolen and the fact the thief had a key to the premises just made it a bit easier for him.
The dealer still has no obligation to make good, but has made a (clumsy) effort to make good but has handled it poorly .
The owner taking it to the media has certainly helped his cause and he'll end up with a brand-newie, but the dealer will be out of pocket and also out of reputation, despite having no fault and no obligation.

---

Dont want to turn this into a pi##ing contest.

BUT reading some of the posts on here and if it was theft and its not the dealers fault then that is what the insurance is for, is it not?

Claim it via insurance, let the insurers fight it out and we move on.

This is of course,what i read is what transpired hey :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radikl

Dont want to turn this into a pi##ing contest.

BUT reading some of the posts on here and if it was theft and its not the dealers fault then that is what the insurance is for, is it not?

Claim it via insurance, let the insurers fight it out and we move on.

This is of course,what i read is what transpired hey :)

---

Yes - however if you read the details the owners are left out of pocket due to their own insurance at market value.
Yes this is there fault probably should have done agreed etc. but then they did have a perfect well cared for low mileage example....

One thing I do Like about the lawyered up US they do have a thing for "diminished value" ... eg a clown damages your car.
Car is repaired but it's not the same perfect conditions as a brand new one.
Why should the owner financial loose out later on when selling ?
In the US people can argue for financial compensation for the difference. (eg it has a mark on it record for being in an accident or the work can be noticed at time of trade in etc.)

So the customer was simply asking for what theirs $$ when being palmed off with a lesser quality item.
Now it's going to cost the dealership dearly - they would have been better off doing the right thing or staying right out of it and let the owners insurance company deal with them.

Some posts here prove Holden dealerships are best avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ausmartin1

Yes - however if you read the details the owners are left out of pocket due to their own insurance at market value.
Yes this is there fault probably should have done agreed etc. but then they did have a perfect well cared for low mileage example....

One thing I do Like about the lawyered up US they do have a thing for "diminished value" ... eg a clown damages your car.
Car is repaired but it's not the same perfect conditions as a brand new one.
Why should the owner financial loose out later on when selling ?
In the US people can argue for financial compensation for the difference. (eg it has a mark on it record for being in an accident or the work can be noticed at time of trade in etc.)

So the customer was simply asking for what theirs $$ when being palmed off with a lesser quality item.
Now it's going to cost the dealership dearly - they would have been better off doing the right thing or staying right out of it and let the owners insurance company deal with them.

---

You obviously didn't read, or didn't absorb what I just wrote.
The dealer has no obligation. None!
The owner had parked his car at a place which happened to be a dealership, and it was stolen.
The owner needs to claim insurance, and if there's an issue, to fight it out with the insurer.
The dealer needn't/shouldn't come into it - he was just the poor bastard from whose premises it was stolen.