Dealerhip totals owner's Camaro ZL1, won't replace
- Thread starter gofast182
- Start date
- Status
I read a different article linked on another forum, and it provides a little more to the story. Supposedly the Camaro owner had bought the car as an investment, to be sold in 18 years to pay for his grand-daughter's college education. And secondly, he has asked his lawyer about the possibility of getting money for "pain and suffering".
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Bought it as an investment? Hmmm. I keep the Trans Am so my son can drive it one day. It is more that he loves it and it has some sentimental value. An investment...Ha. No car is an investment. For me it is an investment in Fun.
Originally Posted By: css9450
I read a different article linked on another forum, and it provides a little more to the story. Supposedly the Camaro owner had bought the car as an investment, to be sold in 18 years to pay for his grand-daughter's college education. And secondly, he has asked his lawyer about the possibility of getting money for "pain and suffering".
It doesn't matter why he bought the car. The expression "pain and suffering" could be the reporters more dramatic way of saying "hassle".. and quite frankly, that's a lot of hassle for just buying a car.
I read a different article linked on another forum, and it provides a little more to the story. Supposedly the Camaro owner had bought the car as an investment, to be sold in 18 years to pay for his grand-daughter's college education. And secondly, he has asked his lawyer about the possibility of getting money for "pain and suffering".
It doesn't matter why he bought the car. The expression "pain and suffering" could be the reporters more dramatic way of saying "hassle".. and quite frankly, that's a lot of hassle for just buying a car.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
I buy into the hassle thing. Seems someone other than the owner and his insurance should be paying for the wrecked car.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
^ He should have kept the 1969.
Seems like a much better investment to me...cheaper to insure (which it appears he didn't do with the 2012 anyway) and a greater potential for appreciation. A 50 year old classic or an 18 year old car that would not yet be considered a classic...hmmm...let me think about that one for a minute...
^ He should have kept the 1969.
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
2 completely different things here. The keys you have are most likely on your personal key chain and are yours until you are with the company. The "service writer" came to the dealership (on a Sunday) and took the keys from the dealers strong box.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
2 completely different things here. The keys you have are most likely on your personal key chain and are yours until you are with the company. The "service writer" came to the dealership (on a Sunday) and took the keys from the dealers strong box.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: css9450
I read a different article linked on another forum, and it provides a little more to the story. Supposedly the Camaro owner had bought the car as an investment, to be sold in 18 years to pay for his grand-daughter's college education. And secondly, he has asked his lawyer about the possibility of getting money for "pain and suffering".
It doesn't matter why he bought the car. The expression "pain and suffering" could be the reporters more dramatic way of saying "hassle".. and quite frankly, that's a lot of hassle for just buying a car.
I need to link back to the other article. The impression I got, was that the term "pain and suffering" came right from the Camaro owner, not the author of the article.
Originally Posted By: css9450
I read a different article linked on another forum, and it provides a little more to the story. Supposedly the Camaro owner had bought the car as an investment, to be sold in 18 years to pay for his grand-daughter's college education. And secondly, he has asked his lawyer about the possibility of getting money for "pain and suffering".
It doesn't matter why he bought the car. The expression "pain and suffering" could be the reporters more dramatic way of saying "hassle".. and quite frankly, that's a lot of hassle for just buying a car.
I need to link back to the other article. The impression I got, was that the term "pain and suffering" came right from the Camaro owner, not the author of the article.
Originally Posted By: stro_cruiser
Empty that stealership & burn it to the ground.
Obligatory car dealer on fire pics:
Empty that stealership & burn it to the ground.
Obligatory car dealer on fire pics:
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
2 completely different things here. The keys you have are most likely on your personal key chain and are yours until you are with the company. The "service writer" came to the dealership (on a Sunday) and took the keys from the dealers strong box.
As I originally said, "Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup", and by "key lockup", I mean the box where they lock up the car keys. That seems reasonable enough to me, seeing as he is a service writer. If it was the GM of the dealership, would you still say the dealership is negligent? Who should be allowed to have keys to the customer key lock box?
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
2 completely different things here. The keys you have are most likely on your personal key chain and are yours until you are with the company. The "service writer" came to the dealership (on a Sunday) and took the keys from the dealers strong box.
As I originally said, "Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup", and by "key lockup", I mean the box where they lock up the car keys. That seems reasonable enough to me, seeing as he is a service writer. If it was the GM of the dealership, would you still say the dealership is negligent? Who should be allowed to have keys to the customer key lock box?
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
Those sign holders were at the wrong place at the wrong time...
Those sign holders were at the wrong place at the wrong time...
How much you want to bet that if they look back at this persons employee record at the business many "issues" will be found?
I think if the $tealership had knowledge of the employee being a problem they will be at least partially responsible.
I think if the $tealership had knowledge of the employee being a problem they will be at least partially responsible.
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
+1.
The dealer may be on a loss-sensitive program of some kind, so they may be responsible for this loss.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: eljefino
How did the employee get the keys after hours? The dealership was negligent in locking them up and their key sign-out policy.
Exactly. It was in their possession. Their employee. Their responsibility.
Their employee probably had keys to the service department and key lockup, considering he was a service writer. True, he was an employee of the company, but he was not acting as an employee of the company at the time that he took the car. There is an element of "garage keepers liability" due to the fact that it was in their possession at the time that it was stolen, but I do not see them as being negligent because they allowed a service writer to have access to the tools required for his job. I have key card access to three of my employer's offices. That does not mean that if I use that access to enter an office after hours and steal my co-workers' stuff that the company should be responsible for that theft.
+1.
The dealer may be on a loss-sensitive program of some kind, so they may be responsible for this loss.
This story doesn't add up. If the owner of the ZL1 was properly insured he should have just gotten a check from his company, and in that case I could see the dealer making a deal to get him a 14.
It sounds like the owner of the ZL1 is either getting greedy and wants a lot, or that he was improperly insured and is now upside down in the loan.
That doesn't make sense since he sold two fairly valuable cars to buy this thing.
Important details to this story are missing.
How well do these cars hold their value? I would think the insurance payout should be within what $10k of new? I could see the dealer at least offering to split that or a bit more.
It sounds like the owner of the ZL1 is either getting greedy and wants a lot, or that he was improperly insured and is now upside down in the loan.
That doesn't make sense since he sold two fairly valuable cars to buy this thing.
Important details to this story are missing.
How well do these cars hold their value? I would think the insurance payout should be within what $10k of new? I could see the dealer at least offering to split that or a bit more.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
Huh.. unrelated to the rest of the thread, but I used to work @ the BP station across from that dealership. (you can see the canopy in the lower left just above the trucks - I left in mid '04, that pic was last April)
Huh.. unrelated to the rest of the thread, but I used to work @ the BP station across from that dealership. (you can see the canopy in the lower left just above the trucks - I left in mid '04, that pic was last April)
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
My opinion here: the dealership should have had a policy in place to secure the keys and prevent this exact circumstance. This is not the first time a garage employee has wrecked a customer's car on a joy ride. Obviously the employee is at fault, so there is blame to go around between both of those parties.
I don't imagine the dealership would be required to purchase the guy a 2014. Should they? Yes. For the sake of good publicity and customer service, they need to make it right, whether they're required to legally or not.
The internet wins this battle. Whoever is managing the dealership needs to learn about PR and customer service. Even if they had to chip in $10k of their own money, they'll be ahead from all the lost sales they're going to deal with now.
I don't imagine the dealership would be required to purchase the guy a 2014. Should they? Yes. For the sake of good publicity and customer service, they need to make it right, whether they're required to legally or not.
The internet wins this battle. Whoever is managing the dealership needs to learn about PR and customer service. Even if they had to chip in $10k of their own money, they'll be ahead from all the lost sales they're going to deal with now.
Look at this line:
"So folks, almost a month later, I am still making payments on a car I do not have"
The car was totaled in mid-December. It's not even mid January. Unless he is making weekly payments, he hasn't made more than two. And with those trade-ins why did he have to get a loan?
"So folks, almost a month later, I am still making payments on a car I do not have"
The car was totaled in mid-December. It's not even mid January. Unless he is making weekly payments, he hasn't made more than two. And with those trade-ins why did he have to get a loan?
- Status
Similar threads
