Dealership Employee Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1
01-12-14, 02:29 AM
#18
Super Moderator
Yes, a sorry incident, but it could (probably) have been very simply avoided, if the owner would have taken a couple of precautions, just stayed with the car, watched what the technician did, and/or kept his or her eyes on things as much as possible. Not many technicians/dealer-employees (even dumb ones like in this case) would have the guts or stupidity to do a classic burnout right in front of a customer's nose (and a lot of V8 Camaro/Mustang owners do enough burnouts themselves). And, even if the customer was not watching, who knows?....the dealership's GM or the employee's boss could be standing just a few feet away. The customer waiting room, of course, is there for the convienence of the service-customers (sometimes with perks like free Internet terminals), but no one is actually forced to use it.
01-12-14, 07:12 AM
#19
Did I read that right, "no crime committed"? Sounds like the dealership did not wish to press charges and instead chose just to fire the employee. Perhaps not breaking and entering, but the employee entered a closed dealership and without permission, took a car (stole a car) and destroyed it. The dealership's "garage keepers" insurance should cover the loss. What is the hold up of the reimbursement or replacement? Perhaps the dealership's insurance doesn't kick in in an event of employee theft?
01-12-14, 08:23 AM
#20
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I read that right, "no crime committed"? Sounds like the dealership did not wish to press charges and instead chose just to fire the employee. Perhaps not breaking and entering, but the employee entered a closed dealership and without permission, took a car (stole a car) and destroyed it. The dealership's "garage keepers" insurance should cover the loss. What is the hold up of the reimbursement or replacement? Perhaps the dealership's insurance doesn't kick in in an event of employee theft?
http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p...camaro/1098871
The issue is the current car is worth less than the loan and they want the dealer to cover the gap as well give them a new car. If this was a regular accident, they still would be out the difference between the ACV vs what's owned on the loan so why is different because a dealership is involved?
Last edited by Corey140; 01-12-14 at 08:28 AM.
01-12-14, 10:14 AM
#21
Pole Position
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: IL
Posts: 2,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the original thread where the owner of the ZL1 is talking. Owner of ZL1 is "jhoop302"
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333504
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333504
01-12-14, 10:49 AM
#22
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
^^ looks relevant...
Originally Posted by jhoop302
At any rate, a retired GM exec called me today to let me know that GM IS involved now. It is our understanding that the matter will be resolved to our satisfaction next week. And GM will make sure that we are treated fairly and equitably.
Originally Posted by jhoop302
At any rate, a retired GM exec called me today to let me know that GM IS involved now. It is our understanding that the matter will be resolved to our satisfaction next week. And GM will make sure that we are treated fairly and equitably.
01-12-14, 12:19 PM
#23
Lexus Fanatic
01-12-14, 12:21 PM
#24
Lexus Fanatic
01-12-14, 12:23 PM
#25
Lexus Fanatic
No, I'm not necessarily saying that. The owner may not have been aware of the simple precautions that could have been taken. And if the owner really distrusts the technician, he or she can always request to ride along (assuming, of course, that it is the type of repair/service that requires a test-drive to verify the accuracy of the repair). A good technician, of course, will have nothing to hide on the test-drive.
That's why we have forums and discussion like this. So people can learn things.
That's why we have forums and discussion like this. So people can learn things.
Last edited by mmarshall; 01-12-14 at 12:26 PM.
01-12-14, 12:49 PM
#26
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
No, I'm not necessarily saying that. The owner may not have been aware of the simple precautions that could have been taken. And if the owner really distrusts the technician, he or she can always request to ride along (assuming, of course, that it is the type of repair/service that requires a test-drive to verify the accuracy of the repair). A good technician, of course, will have nothing to hide on the test-drive.
That's why we have forums and discussion like this. So people can learn things.
That's why we have forums and discussion like this. So people can learn things.
might want to read some of this thread including the owner's first post account of it:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333504
01-12-14, 01:19 PM
#27
Lexus Fanatic
but from what i've read, the 'technician' went in on sunday after the car was dropped off days before (the dealership was CLOSED) and took the car for a joy ride without anyone at the dealer's knowledge. he in essence STOLE the car, which is why the dealer is saying not their problem.
might want to read some of this thread including the owner's first post account of it:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333504
might want to read some of this thread including the owner's first post account of it:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333504
Perhaps I didn't notice the Sunday joy-ride part of it. I'm not perfect....I do miss things once in a while. That does change the circumstances some. 
Last edited by mmarshall; 01-12-14 at 01:32 PM.
01-14-14, 08:48 PM
#28
Lexus Test Driver
Looks like a resolution has been found and is being carried out.
GM had to step in and it seems that Mr. Hooper will be using the insurance money to pay off the current note and a brand new 2013 ZL1 is being transferred from a dealer in Detroit to the dealer in question which Mr. Hooper will be purchasing. Sounds like he's still going to be out $5-6k.
Honestly, GM needs to revoke the franchise of this dealer.
GM had to step in and it seems that Mr. Hooper will be using the insurance money to pay off the current note and a brand new 2013 ZL1 is being transferred from a dealer in Detroit to the dealer in question which Mr. Hooper will be purchasing. Sounds like he's still going to be out $5-6k.
Honestly, GM needs to revoke the franchise of this dealer.
01-14-14, 08:55 PM
#29
Lexus Fanatic
Because one person screwed up and abused somebody's car? A pattern of abuses like that, of course, would be another matter. Still, I agree that what that one person did was indeed serious....see my reply just below.
Something here may not be making sense. Dealer-custody or not, in most states, if one takes property that expensive (tens of thousands of dollars), without permission, and wrecks it, that's not only serious neglect but would probably be considered a felony as well. It is, in effect, a form of auto-theft.
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
Last edited by mmarshall; 01-14-14 at 09:09 PM.
01-15-14, 10:59 AM
#30
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.
How does he claim that a replacement ZL1 is not an equivalent one is mind numbing. Did he line it with gold?
Last edited by chikoo; 01-15-14 at 11:04 AM.