Chevy Camaro ZL1 owner fights dealership that totaled his car

[Harvick]

Can you imagine if this happened to our car?


From this article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/motoram...-fights-dealership-totaled-car-170136602.html

At 580 hp and a starting price of $55,000, the Chevy Camaro ZL1 ranks as the top dog of the Camaro lineup (at least until the Z/28 hits the track.) For Camaro enthusiasts like John Hooper, author of six books on the history of Camaros, it's a dream car — or at least was a dream car, until an employee at a Chevy dealership totaled his ZL1 on an unauthorized joyride. Nearly a month later, Hooper and the dealership have yet to agree on how much that particular top dog was worth.

Something about Camaros seems to bring out the dark side of the dealer service department; recall the man who hid a voice recorder in the door pocket of his Camaro SS and caught mechanics doing burn-outs. According to Hooper's posts on the Camaro5 forum, he had taken his 2012 Camaro ZL1 to First State Chevy in Georgetown, Del., for warranty work on a paint issue. On Dec. 15, a Sunday, one of the dealer's employees took the keys from the closed dealership and went for a spin — that ended when the ZL1 sheared off a telephone pole.

The next day, the dealership told Hooper about the incident, and by the end of that week, the car had been declared a total loss. Since then, Hooper and First State have been unable to reach an accord over how to replace the ZL1.

To First State's credit, it immediately fired the employee who took the car and tried to pursue charges against him — but local officials said since the car was in the dealership's legal possession at the time of the crash, no crime was committed. Hooper's ZL1 had about 10,000 miles on it, and while First State has offered other used ZL1s as replacements, Hooper has said those cars were not worth as much as his example was pre-crash.

Hooper told the Cape Gazette of Lewes, Del., today that while the dealership has given them a loaner to drive, they are still making payments on the ZL1 while it sits in a salvage yard. “We're losing sleep over this, time off from work, and this still isn't resolved,” Hooper told the paper. “This is so ethically and morally wrong it isn't funny.”

 

[pelotonracer2]

Yeah, I'd be really upset too... I think they have an obligation to do something about it too... I see there is no mention about "insurance" from either side which I find somewhat interesting.

 

[Perry]

As I see it, the dealership has complete culpability in the matter; they need to do whatever is necessary to give Hooper a suitable replacement. And if that means a new car, so be it. Frankly, the inconvenience, annoyance, etc., are all worth something, and so just trying to replace a 2012 with 10,000 miles with a similar used vehicle, as if individual vehicles never have or acquire individual attributes, might be acceptable if it were some sort of act of God or unavoidable event that's simply an accepted risk of doing business, as it were. Having one's car totaled by a joy-riding employee of the dealership is not an accepted risk, and the dealer is thus responsible for failure to properly care for, protect, etc., the vehicle. I think the dealer could've done Mr. Hooper and itself a service by finding a way to put Mr. Hooper in a vehicle that made him happy by the time the sun came up Christmas morning--might even have turned a negative into a positive.

 

[pelotonracer2]

As I see it, the dealership has complete culpability in the matter; they need to do whatever is necessary to give Hooper a suitable replacement. And if that means a new car, so be it. Frankly, the inconvenience, annoyance, etc., are all worth something, and so just trying to replace a 2012 with 10,000 miles with a similar used vehicle, as if individual vehicles never have or acquire individual attributes, might be acceptable if it were some sort of act of God or unavoidable event that's simply an accepted risk of doing business, as it were. Having one's car totaled by a joy-riding employee of the dealership is not an accepted risk, and the dealer is thus responsible for failure to properly care for, protect, etc., the vehicle. I think the dealer could've done Mr. Hooper and itself a service by finding a way to put Mr. Hooper in a vehicle that made him happy by the time the sun came up Christmas morning--might even have turned a negative into a positive.

I agree 100%

 

[jariten]

I've read a number of articles about this and there're just some things that don't add up to me. To me it seems like it really sucks for everyone involved.

What's weird with this story is that right now the owners insurance is processing the claim and providing them with the totaled value. Because that's happening it puts the dealer in a really weird position. If the dealer provides the owner with a new/equivalent car than the dealer just took the whole thing out of hide and the customer ends up with the car and the insurance check. That seems to be why the dealer is having to 'sell' them the replacement vehicle rather than just handing them one.

I don't really understand why this ended up on the personal insurance and not the dealer's insurance. If it had been on the dealer's insurance it would be a no-brainer to take the loss and order the customer a brand new car with the exact same specs as the original. Since they're having to 'sell' them another it seems that the dealer found a bunch of other ZL-1s and offered to 'sell' them to the guy for the insurance payout. They also offered to give them 5k cash on top but the guy wanted 11k cash in addition to the vehicles offered. The dealers lawyers have told them to stop interacting with the customer since they're already getting an insurance payout but are trying to stick the dealer with 11 grand as punishment. Really weird situation.

I also don't understand why criminal charges can't be pressed. It's not like employees at dealerships can't steal cars...it happens all the time. If the employee was not required to drive it in accordance with the dealer service then it is theft just as it would be if anyone else stole the car and took it for a joy ride. On one article I read it said that he was a finance employee or something so there is no reason that he ever should have been in the car and therefor is a thief and should get a GTA charge.

 

[MKVIIST]

Goodness, I would think in this day that anything negative on the internet can spread like wild fire. I hope own up and make it right for this guy.