put it on a trailer / paint the dealers name on it and park it in front of there place.
Dealerhip totals owner's Camaro ZL1, won't replace
- Thread starter gofast182
- Start date
- Status
We have ways of dealing with this. His insurance will cover fair market. If he is upside down he can sue to guy who stole it in civil court for the rest.
Leeson learned. Dont take out loans for stuff you cant afford. He probably lives in a McMansion thats underwater too.
Leeson learned. Dont take out loans for stuff you cant afford. He probably lives in a McMansion thats underwater too.
Originally Posted By: nepadriver
Leeson learned. Dont take out loans for stuff you cant afford. He probably lives in a McMansion thats underwater too.
Nice to hear a voice of reason. I hate to say it but someone has to: too many people living beyond their means was the primary reason for the economic collapse/recession that started several years ago.
Leeson learned. Dont take out loans for stuff you cant afford. He probably lives in a McMansion thats underwater too.
Nice to hear a voice of reason. I hate to say it but someone has to: too many people living beyond their means was the primary reason for the economic collapse/recession that started several years ago.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Look at he original article!!!
"The dealership claims to have had their replacement car reviewed by a certified classic car appraiser, and on top of that they offered $5,000 along with the car. This is money outside of any dealings the Hoopers have with their insurance company.4
The general manager told me that the Hoopers then asked for $11,000 instead of $5,000 to take the replacement car. That offer did not pan out.
I guess the numbers got mixed up somehow. The original article states:
"The latest was the same year and model but had 3,000 miles more, and its wheels were less expensive than those on the original car. Even with a $4,000 cash offering, he said, it didn't compare with what they lost. Then Debbie found out from a Camaro website that the car had previously had two different owners and had been involved in an accident. "
I certainly don't think that car is a worthy replacement but I can see how it would be really tough (to impossible) to find a 'like mint' replacement. I don't know how many of these were made/sold but it could be the closest thing they'll find.
Look at he original article!!!
"The dealership claims to have had their replacement car reviewed by a certified classic car appraiser, and on top of that they offered $5,000 along with the car. This is money outside of any dealings the Hoopers have with their insurance company.4
The general manager told me that the Hoopers then asked for $11,000 instead of $5,000 to take the replacement car. That offer did not pan out.
I guess the numbers got mixed up somehow. The original article states:
"The latest was the same year and model but had 3,000 miles more, and its wheels were less expensive than those on the original car. Even with a $4,000 cash offering, he said, it didn't compare with what they lost. Then Debbie found out from a Camaro website that the car had previously had two different owners and had been involved in an accident. "
I certainly don't think that car is a worthy replacement but I can see how it would be really tough (to impossible) to find a 'like mint' replacement. I don't know how many of these were made/sold but it could be the closest thing they'll find.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: nepadriver
Leeson learned. Dont take out loans for stuff you cant afford. He probably lives in a McMansion thats underwater too.
I don't think the money or his house is the issue here. His property was damaged and the dealer is not being smart (or responsible) about it.
Leeson learned. Dont take out loans for stuff you cant afford. He probably lives in a McMansion thats underwater too.
I don't think the money or his house is the issue here. His property was damaged and the dealer is not being smart (or responsible) about it.
Last edited:
There is a lot of pure speculation going on about his financial situation in regards to the car and a lot of it is not even relevant to the story. I also have not read anywhere where they are expecting a new car out of this whole deal. They just want something that is comparable to what they had. I don't think the dealer is obligated to give them a brand new car but find one that is comparable or better than what they had. I do think the dealer has some culpability in what happened. The car was in their possession so they should have some responsibility to make things right.
As far as the replacement car goes, no way would I accept one that has been in an accident, especially if my former car had not. I could live with the extra 3,000 miles. The sunroof would also be a deal killer. I also don't think that they should be forced to accept the first vehicle that the dealership finds. There has got to be other ZL-1's for sale nation wide.
Hopefully the owner's get a resolution that they can live with. A [censored] situation anyway you look at it. I would probably not be happy either.
Wayne
As far as the replacement car goes, no way would I accept one that has been in an accident, especially if my former car had not. I could live with the extra 3,000 miles. The sunroof would also be a deal killer. I also don't think that they should be forced to accept the first vehicle that the dealership finds. There has got to be other ZL-1's for sale nation wide.
Hopefully the owner's get a resolution that they can live with. A [censored] situation anyway you look at it. I would probably not be happy either.
Wayne
Hmm, wonder why my posts got deleted. ?
Same thing happened with one of the larger tire shop franchises here in Ohio. Guy took his Porsche 911 Turbo in for a new set of tires. The tech was "road testing" it and hit a bridge at 120mph. Luckily the 19 YOA tech only sideswiped the concrete bridge column and sheared off the passenger side of the car. The owners attorney was able to secure a brand new Porsche 911 Turbo and a few bucks in an un-published settlement.
I call it the "Ferris Bueller" treatment.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S7AyiVfNdA
I call it the "Ferris Bueller" treatment.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S7AyiVfNdA
Last edited:
Like it or not, the dealer does not owe the owner anything, not even an apology.
The car was stolen from the dealer. The dealer did not hand their former employee the keys and tell him to go for a joyride. It's no different from a random crook breaking in and stealing the car.
Sucks for the car owner but [censored] happens. He'll have to be satisfied with his insurance payout and/or whatever he can sue out of the thief.
The car was stolen from the dealer. The dealer did not hand their former employee the keys and tell him to go for a joyride. It's no different from a random crook breaking in and stealing the car.
Sucks for the car owner but [censored] happens. He'll have to be satisfied with his insurance payout and/or whatever he can sue out of the thief.
Some folks are saying the SA did not have keys to the building but was allowed access to the secured area in order to get a cell phone charger and also that there was a friend in the car...
Don't know if that is true or not...
Don't know if that is true or not...
Anyway, deleted or not my point was that there's nothing in the jhoop302 posts that indicates he's in financial stress or that he purchased this car as an investment.
- He's purchased several cars from the dealer in the past.
- He's written several books on the first-gen Camaro.
- This car was his (and his wife's?) 'baby'. Then intended to keep it well maintained for a very long time.
- His concern (now) is to get a proper replacement, the money is secondary.
- The dealer insists that aren't going to spend 'a penny' to help him out.
... etc, etc.
- He's purchased several cars from the dealer in the past.
- He's written several books on the first-gen Camaro.
- This car was his (and his wife's?) 'baby'. Then intended to keep it well maintained for a very long time.
- His concern (now) is to get a proper replacement, the money is secondary.
- The dealer insists that aren't going to spend 'a penny' to help him out.
... etc, etc.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
Like it or not, the dealer does not owe the owner anything, not even an apology.
The car was stolen from the dealer. The dealer did not hand their former employee the keys and tell him to go for a joyride. It's no different from a random crook breaking in and stealing the car.
Sucks for the car owner but [poo] happens. He'll have to be satisfied with his insurance payout and/or whatever he can sue out of the thief.
Yes it was stolen, but the dealer probably could have taken additional steps to prevent such a theft.
I still think the dealership should publicly name the employee, though I'm not sure about the legality of that.
Like it or not, the dealer does not owe the owner anything, not even an apology.
The car was stolen from the dealer. The dealer did not hand their former employee the keys and tell him to go for a joyride. It's no different from a random crook breaking in and stealing the car.
Sucks for the car owner but [poo] happens. He'll have to be satisfied with his insurance payout and/or whatever he can sue out of the thief.
Yes it was stolen, but the dealer probably could have taken additional steps to prevent such a theft.
I still think the dealership should publicly name the employee, though I'm not sure about the legality of that.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: martinq
- He's written several books on the first-gen Camero.
I don't spell well and I certainly do not care for the grammar police on the net as I spend time on the net vegetating but...
Pet peeve of mine. It is Camaro.
- He's written several books on the first-gen Camero.
I don't spell well and I certainly do not care for the grammar police on the net as I spend time on the net vegetating but...
Pet peeve of mine. It is Camaro.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Pet peeve of mine. It is Camaro.
Ninja edit just-in-time FTW!!!
:]
Pet peeve of mine. It is Camaro.
Ninja edit just-in-time FTW!!!
:]
Last edited:
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Pet peeve of mine. It is Camaro.
Ninja edit just-in-time FTW!!!
:]
Gotta love the Ninja edit. I hate when I mess up and it is expired!
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Pet peeve of mine. It is Camaro.
Ninja edit just-in-time FTW!!!
:]
Gotta love the Ninja edit. I hate when I mess up and it is expired!
Originally Posted By: AP9
Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
Like it or not, the dealer does not owe the owner anything, not even an apology.
The car was stolen from the dealer. The dealer did not hand their former employee the keys and tell him to go for a joyride. It's no different from a random crook breaking in and stealing the car.
Sucks for the car owner but [poo] happens. He'll have to be satisfied with his insurance payout and/or whatever he can sue out of the thief.
Yes it was stolen, but the dealer probably could have taken additional steps to prevent such a theft.
The obvious one: lock it in the shop after hours! The dealer where I bought my Magnum did that with ALL SRT cars in for service.
Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
Like it or not, the dealer does not owe the owner anything, not even an apology.
The car was stolen from the dealer. The dealer did not hand their former employee the keys and tell him to go for a joyride. It's no different from a random crook breaking in and stealing the car.
Sucks for the car owner but [poo] happens. He'll have to be satisfied with his insurance payout and/or whatever he can sue out of the thief.
Yes it was stolen, but the dealer probably could have taken additional steps to prevent such a theft.
The obvious one: lock it in the shop after hours! The dealer where I bought my Magnum did that with ALL SRT cars in for service.
I concur, and I think that the dealer had some responsibility to ensure that the vehicle and keys were secured properly over the weekend.
His financial or insurance situation is not significant to this story. At this point, whether the dealer has a legal obligation to replace the vehicle isn't either.
The dealer needs to accept responsibility and make it right. Whether that means finding a cherry used ZL1 that meets his requirements or getting him a new one is up to the parties involved. The two-owner car which was in an accident that they offered to sell him is just ridiculous.
That it even came to this is astounding. Has the dealership's management ever heard of the internet? All they should be saying now is "We're sorry. We should have done a better job securing the vehicle. Here are the keys to your new car."
His financial or insurance situation is not significant to this story. At this point, whether the dealer has a legal obligation to replace the vehicle isn't either.
The dealer needs to accept responsibility and make it right. Whether that means finding a cherry used ZL1 that meets his requirements or getting him a new one is up to the parties involved. The two-owner car which was in an accident that they offered to sell him is just ridiculous.
That it even came to this is astounding. Has the dealership's management ever heard of the internet? All they should be saying now is "We're sorry. We should have done a better job securing the vehicle. Here are the keys to your new car."
It's a low number boutique model and optioned car. It's an insurance issue plain and simple. Whomever's insurance is responsible just needs to cut the guy a check for the current value and be done with it.
If this was a 1988 Yugo that got totaled, nobody would be crying over the internet that the dealer needs to find an exact replacement 1988 Yugo with same color, options and mileage. Insurance would cut the guy a check for his 1988 Yugo value (which is probably the cost of a Moon Pie and a soda) and send him on his way.
Sucks for the guy but he is nothing special regardless of what his vehicle is/was and current value is all he is entitled for.
To many people are putting emotions into what is just a financial insurance settlement.
If this was a 1988 Yugo that got totaled, nobody would be crying over the internet that the dealer needs to find an exact replacement 1988 Yugo with same color, options and mileage. Insurance would cut the guy a check for his 1988 Yugo value (which is probably the cost of a Moon Pie and a soda) and send him on his way.
Sucks for the guy but he is nothing special regardless of what his vehicle is/was and current value is all he is entitled for.
To many people are putting emotions into what is just a financial insurance settlement.
Originally Posted By: Hootbro
To many people are putting emotions into what is just a financial insurance settlement.
That's because we are car guys. This story is everywhere. The dealership would lose less money if they bought him a brand new car. Whether they get insurance reimbursement or not.
I'll flip this around on you and say the dealership is getting emotional. Dumb.
If they went over and above to take care of him people would flock there as an honest car dealer is very hard to find.
To many people are putting emotions into what is just a financial insurance settlement.
That's because we are car guys. This story is everywhere. The dealership would lose less money if they bought him a brand new car. Whether they get insurance reimbursement or not.
I'll flip this around on you and say the dealership is getting emotional. Dumb.
If they went over and above to take care of him people would flock there as an honest car dealer is very hard to find.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
