ZL1 owner fights dealership over wrecked/totaled car.

[samckitt]

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/chevy-camaro-zl1-owner-fights-dealership-totaled-car-170136602.html

[zz430droptop67rs]

I have been following this since it first became public. It is an absolute horror story!

[TheJDMan]

This is an old story. Last I heard it was all in the insurance company's hands. I suspect there may be a bidding war on the power train parts.

[Bill Howell]

Take the emotions out of the equation and I simply don't see what all the fuss is about. If it were me, I would have given the dealership about a week to make a decision, then I would have called my insurance and let them process the claim. (I pretty much bet his personal insurance will have to pay, depending on the dealership agreement he signed when he dropped it off, that is usually what happens). Then, when everything flushed, and I still wasn't happen with the outcome, it would be time to talk to an attorney and suit the dealership. No need in all the drama, it is just a business decision.
He did have a USED car with 10,000 miles on it. That used car has a value, period. Either he is made whole based on the actual value (not his perceived, trumped up, pain and suffering or sentimental value), with check or another car or he lets a jury decide what is fair.

Gee, how simple was that????? LOL

[strtcar]

I agree with ^^^^

[samckitt]

I would find out who the dealer employee is that took the car & wrecked it & go after him too.

[Al Moreno]

This guy original brought it to public in the Camaro5.com forum on 12-20.

Here is his first post: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333504

On Sunday, December 15, 2013, my prized 2012 Camaro ZL1 took its last breath at 4:47 pm. The car was at the dealer in Georgetown, DE for paint issues (under warranty). It had been locked in the service bay over the weekend. On Sunday afternoon, an employee of the dealership (service writer) entered the locked building, removed the keys to my car from the service department, and went on a joyride. The car was totaled when he lost control and sheared off a telephone pole.

The dealership informed my wife and I on Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. of our loss. Yes, they waited over 16 hours to tell us about our car. I am sure they discussed the incident with their attorneys prior to calling us.

It is now Friday, the car has been officially totaled by the insurance company, and the dealership is telling us it is not their problem. They even refuse to provide my wife and I (and our insurance company) with their insurance information.

I traded in my 2011 SS2 Camaro and sold my 1969 Camaro SS in pristine condition to buy the ZL1. I will never be able to afford another new ZL1, and basically I don't think I should have to be put in the position to have to buy a new one. We trusted the dealership to use vigilance while our car was in their possession. We can't even have charges pressed against their employee for theft because the car was not in OUR possession when stolen.

Something about this whole thing just doesn't seem right. What would you do if this was your baby?

[71RS/SS396]

Take the emotions out of the equation and I simply don't see what all the fuss is about. If it were me, I would have given the dealership about a week to make a decision, then I would have called my insurance and let them process the claim. (I pretty much bet his personal insurance will have to pay, depending on the dealership agreement he signed when he dropped it off, that is usually what happens). Then, when everything flushed, and I still wasn't happen with the outcome, it would be time to talk to an attorney and suit the dealership. No need in all the drama, it is just a business decision.
He did have a USED car with 10,000 miles on it. That used car has a value, period. Either he is made whole based on the actual value (not his perceived, trumped up, pain and suffering or sentimental value), with check or another car or he lets a jury decide what is fair.

Gee, how simple was that????? LOL

Bill, it's the internet mob mentality that's caused all the drama. Imho the dealership took reasonable measures to safe guard the car, just because some dirtbag, thief, employee decided to steal it doesn't make the dealer responsible. There's a guy on another forum I'm on that lives in the same small town and knows the car owner, he said that he's seen the car parked everywhere, Wal Mart, movie theater, restaurants....etc doesn't sound like some pampered over protected car like he's claiming. Classic example of an opportunist trying to get something extra out of it. The reality is the guy didn't have the car insured properly if he was expecting new replacement cost.

[Sieg]

The reality is the guy didn't have the car insured properly if he was expecting new replacement cost.
Or the way he financed it left him upside-down and that reality doesn't seem fair to him?

[hifi875]

The dealer is responsible. Don't matter that a employee took it without permission

[glassman]

Or the way he financed it left him upside-down and that reality doesn't seem fair to him?

If financed, hence the need for "gap" insurance.

Everytime anyone of us drives something off the lot, 99.5% of the time it depriciates fast. But why am i saying that here, us car guys "get it", we'll, 99.5% of us haha

[ArisESQ]

Why does he think his car is worth more than other used ZL1? Was there something special about it?

[Sieg]

If financed, hence the need for "gap" insurance.

Everytime anyone of us drives something off the lot, 99.5% of the time it depriciates fast. But why am i saying that here, us car guys "get it", we'll, 99.5% of us haha
If financed because there was no way in the world he could afford the image he had to project you can bet he scrimped on the insurance too. :secret:

Not like a car dealership/finance company would ever put a customer upside down in a loan. :rolleyes:

Thankfully there are us bottom feeders wanting to suck up the prime salvage. :D

[MarkM66]

Take the emotions out of the equation and I simply don't see what all the fuss is about. If it were me, I would have given the dealership about a week to make a decision, then I would have called my insurance and let them process the claim. (I pretty much bet his personal insurance will have to pay, depending on the dealership agreement he signed when he dropped it off, that is usually what happens). Then, when everything flushed, and I still wasn't happen with the outcome, it would be time to talk to an attorney and suit the dealership. No need in all the drama, it is just a business decision.
He did have a USED car with 10,000 miles on it. That used car has a value, period. Either he is made whole based on the actual value (not his perceived, trumped up, pain and suffering or sentimental value), with check or another car or he lets a jury decide what is fair.

Gee, how simple was that????? LOL

I don't get all the fuss either. The owner must me a drama queen. Worst case, pay your deductible, and get on with your life!!!!!

[Al Moreno]

Hey guys not for nothing but I've been following the thread on Camaro5.com since his first post. There's now 193,000 views and 933 comments. Hes has only posted 19 times..... He has been getting the ROYAL screw by the dealership!!! I wouldn't expect you to read the 933 comments, but if you want a gist of the situation, just read his 19 post. We all would be livid if what he's experiencing had happen to any of our guys here.

BTW, he is the author of the first gen Camaro restoration book along with 5 others. No drama, no mob theory, just a major "F" job by the dealer.

There a reason it's blown up on the internet.

[Sieg]

That's too bad. :(

[Che70velle]

Here's my OPINION, which doesn't mean squat...

I don't care if it was my zl1, my enzo, or my Ford Fiesta. If I take my car into a dealership for service, and this happened, someone is going to write me a check.
Here in the Atlanta area, the 3 local news stations would absolutely LOVE to get ahold of this. Here, there also would be lawyers taking you out to dinner, trying to get the case. Around these parts, they are called stealerships...

[ArisESQ]

Here's my OPINION, which doesn't mean squat...

I don't care if it was my zl1, my enzo, or my Ford Fiesta. If I take my car into a dealership for service, and this happened, someone is going to write me a check.
Here in the Atlanta area, the 3 local news stations would absolutely LOVE to get ahold of this. Here, there also would be lawyers taking you out to dinner, trying to get the case. Around these parts, they are called stealerships...


What I'm gathering is that they are offering to write him a check, or give him the value of his car when it was totaled - which is how insurance typically works.

He's making the argument that the car he was given to replace his wasn't worth as much, since he isn't the original owner of the replacement.

[Sparks67]

He has been getting the ROYAL screw by the dealership!!!


The dealership is responsible, but they won't pay at all. Any time you are in a car wreck and the other driver is at fault. Then it is their insurance that pays. This story is similar to my father's car being totaled at a dealership in 1990. The dealership's service manager drove my father's car home and then proceeded to drive through a flooded street. "He made the claim that the street wasn't flooded at the time." Although, it conflicted with the video tape that a neighbor had shot of the flooded street. Showing him driving into the water that was around over 2 feet high. The dealership's plan was to dry out the car and give it back to us without filing a claim. My father only wanted it to be totaled out. Have dealership insurance to pay for it. My father had talked to several mechanics and they recommend to not take a car with EFI that had been in a flood.

Bill Howell posted about getting an attorney and filing suit. Yes, my father did that as well. Although, the dealership tries to financially break you, by countless delays. My father's case was settled in about 3 years. Yes, it should have been resolved in a few months.

Jeff

[Sparks67]

What I'm gathering is that they are offering to write him a check, or give him the value of his car when it was totaled - which is how insurance typically works.

He's making the argument that the car he was given to replace his wasn't worth as much, since he isn't the original owner of the replacement.

They offer you a car that is worth less, as stated in this article.
http://jalopnik.com/dealership-totals-customers-camaro-zl1-owner-and-deal-1498804012 This is typical of insurance companies, so if you have an item that is worth 4k, then they try to replace it with an item worth 400. He is just starting the Insurance/dealership game at 1 month, but it typically takes several months to get items replaced.

He never be happy, but his best bet is to get a new 2014 ZL1 and just pay the difference.

[71RS/SS396]

Hey guys not for nothing but I've been following the thread on Camaro5.com since his first post. There's now 193,000 views and 933 comments. Hes has only posted 19 times..... He has been getting the ROYAL screw by the dealership!!! I wouldn't expect you to read the 933 comments, but if you want a gist of the situation, just read his 19 post. We all would be livid if what he's experiencing had happen to any of our guys here.

BTW, he is the author of the first gen Camaro restoration book along with 5 others. No drama, no mob theory, just a major "F" job by the dealer.

There a reason it's blown up on the internet.

Al, the ZL1 owner is not being truthful. I know someone that lives in the same town and he knows the whole story. This is a very small town, the entire dealership sits on about 2 acres to give you an idea. The car wasn't even smashed into a pole, it hit something else, my friend happened upon the car shortly after the wreck. The reason the car was at the dealer in the first place was from an ongoing paint problem from previous damage not because of a factory flaw like he's claiming. This car was not as pristine as he's making out to be. Allegedly he was offered a new Z/28 and he turned it down. Imho this guy is posturing for what he believes will be a big payout in a lawsuit.

[ArisESQ]

They offer you a car that is worth less, as stated in this article.
http://jalopnik.com/dealership-totals-customers-camaro-zl1-owner-and-deal-1498804012 This is typical of insurance companies, so if you have an item that is worth 4k, then they try to replace it with an item worth 400. He is just starting the Insurance/dealership game at 1 month, but it typically takes several months to get items replaced.

He never be happy, but his best bet is to get a new 2014 ZL1 and just pay the difference.


I think you're probably right, in that the insurance company will generally have a lot of difficulty in replacing a car worth exactly the same, but it isn't really fair to say they'd pay out the equivalent of $400 for a car worth $4,000.

I dealt with insurance when I totaled a Ford Explorer several years ago. They offered to replace it with another Ford Explorer of the same trim level and option which was actually lower in mileage than mine, since there just weren't a ton of Ford Explorers with my options.
I assume that a similar thing is happening here - there likely aren't a ton of ZL1 Camaros to replace this guy's, so insurance is just trying to find the best/closest thing they can - which would likely be satisfactory to 95% of car owners. I think the issue is that since this guy clearly knows cars, he isn't happy taking a replacement which he knows probably wasn't cared for the same way he cared for his. It's unfortunate that he feels that way, but I don't think he'll have too much luck with them beyond that, unless he had some kind of custom car insurance.

Hope it gets resolved reasonably, but I'll be somewhat surprised if he ends up with much more than they've offered him.

[zz430droptop67rs]

Everybody was saying he hit a telephone pole, but last night I saw some "new" pics from the scene and it was a tree. Not that it really matters, but who knows how many other things are wrong with this story.

I do hope that the victim gets satisfaction.

There is another Chevy dealer offering help, but it hasn't been disclosed yet just what kind of help. Also an aftermarket suspension company is donating front and rear sway bars for his replacement car.

People are trying to help.

[ArisESQ]

I can sort of understand why he would be frustrated with the replacement they found. As a car-guy, I'm sure he worked pretty hard to find the perfect ZL1 with the exact options and trim that he wanted, so anything shy of exactly what he had would likely feel like a downgrade.

Ideally another ZL1 will turn up soon, which is closer to what he had to begin with.

[Vegas69]

I'm with Bill, some people spend way to much time on minor things. We aren't talking about some irreplaceable item here. It's a new Camaro...

[ArisESQ]

I'm with Bill, some people spend way to much time on minor things. We aren't talking about some irreplaceable item here. It's a new Camaro...

Yea - I agree with you, and I definitely think this is being blown WAY the f out of proportion, likely in the hopes of ending up ahead of where he started.

But whatever, at the end of the day I hope the guy gets a decent replacement.

[zz430droptop67rs]

It sounds like it's down to the short strokes now:

(From Camaro5)

RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635 UPDATE 1/13/2014
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)

[Bill Howell]

Well line 4 explains a lot of the drama. PAYMENTS as in it wasn't paid for. I bet gap insurance was needed and not obtained, leading to a very different bottom line from payoff and ACV. Just guessing but I bet that is close to the real reason this has taken so long.

[tones2SS]

Kudos to the sponsors that stepped up and offered many parts and items for the car if needed. Very classy and well played. :thumbsup:
(As mentioned in line 7.)

[Moose]

Well line 4 explains a lot of the drama. PAYMENTS as in it wasn't paid for. I bet gap insurance was needed and not obtained, leading to a very different bottom line from payoff and ACV. Just guessing but I bet that is close to the real reason this has taken so long.

I understand what you're saying, but if a dealer wrecks my car on a joy ride, I dont really think I should need GAP insurance

[Bill Howell]

I understand what you're saying, but if a dealer wrecks my car on a joy ride, I dont really think I should need GAP insurance

I hear you and logically I feel the same way. However, it depends on the contractual agreement he signed with the dealership. I know that locally, if something happens, like they wreck your vehicle, then your insurance is first up. Now, any dealer can step up and do right by their customer, but unfortunately, people sometimes sign things they don't read. I have no idea about this case, but worse case scenario, he may need that gap after all.

[OBeer-WAN-Kenobi]

I hear you and logically I feel the same way. However, it depends on the contractual agreement he signed with the dealership. I know that locally, if something happens, like they wreck your vehicle, then your insurance is first up. Now, any dealer can step up and do right by their customer, but unfortunately, people sometimes sign things they don't read. I have no idea about this case, but worse case scenario, he may need that gap after all.

I've never heard of this. If they wreck it, THEIR insurance should be first up. That's the same way it works when you get in an accident. The person's insurance who was at fault gets dinged. Of course, this could be different in "no fault" states or whatever. I only know what happens where I live.

Also, I've very seldom signed anything at a dealer until after the repairs were made. Once again, that's how it works around here.

I suppose everything could be a lot different depending on where an incident takes place.

I do agree that the value of the car is the value of the car though. If he owed more than it's worth, there isn't a lot he can do besides ask for a comparable replacement.

Our problem, as a nation; I believe, is that we actually pay way more than a car is worth when we buy a new one. Which is why I won't buy a brand new one if I can help it. There isn't another single large ticket item that depreciates so greatly in the first small time period of ownership as a new vehicle. IMHO, it depreciates that much because it wasn't worth it in the first place. The price is inflated because the automakers aren't getting the correct value out of their lower skilled positions. If persons job is to tighten lug nuts, that person should get paid based on the value of tightening lug nuts. Once again, I could be wrong and there could be another reason prices are inflated but I don't think I'm wrong about them being inflated in the first place.

I ran into a situation a few years back where I was Tboned in my 1987 blazer. My insurance totaled it and didn't want to give me what it was worth. I told them that was fine if they could find me a replacement that was as in as good of shape as mine. They couldn't/wouldn't so they payed me the money.

[Payton King]

Follows the vehicle not the driver in an "at fault" state.

If you loan you friend you car and he wrecks it (his fault whether single car or multi car accident), your insurance covers the loss. Only time your friend's would come into play is if your policy had lapsed, amount of damage was over your limit, then his would pay excess.

The dealership with have garage liability and grage keepers liability. If vehicle is damage due to normal business it would pay. In the above situation, I woud guess it does not apply since essentially the vehicle was stolen from the dealership.

When it is all said and done, the insurance company paying for the loss will subrogate against the person who took the car to recover their money.

[Bill Howell]

Follows the vehicle not the driver in an "at fault" state.

If you loan you friend you car and he wrecks it (his fault whether single car or multi car accident), your insurance covers the loss. Only time your friend's would come into play is if your policy had lapsed, amount of damage was over your limit, then his would pay excess.

The dealership with have garage liability and grage keepers liability. If vehicle is damage due to normal business it would pay. In the above situation, I woud guess it does not apply since essentially the vehicle was stolen from the dealership.

When it is all said and done, the insurance company paying for the loss will subrogate against the person who took the car to recover their money.

Thanks Payton. I was in the towing business in Ga. for 13 years. I saw this more than once while a car was at a repair shop. One in particular was a dealership where two porters wrecked two cars racing at lunch. Both individuals insurances had to pay for the totals. It may be different in other states, I don't know but that is how it was in Ga.
Not that any of this matters, and no use debating since it looks like the OP and that issue has been resolved.

[Efi69Cam]

The entire concept of value is predicated on a desire by two parties to conduct a transaction. Both parties then settle on an amount before the transaction is conducted.

The problem with insurance settlements based on "market" value, particularly when the claimant is not at fault, is that it becomes a forced one sided transaction. ZL1 dude was essentially forced to sell his car by events completely outside his control. Why does his opinions of what its worth suddenly not matter?

Never, ever, in my dealings with insurance companies would I have sold my vehicle for what they offered. I'm pretty sure that if I walked up to the owner of that ZL1, before it was wrecked, and offered to buy his car for the amount the insurance deemed the value of his car was, he would have declined.