Dealership employee totals...

[WolfeMacleod]

ZL1 Camaro.

Just picked this up on Jalopnik. Yikes!

Dealership Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner And Dealer At War



Dealership Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner And Dealer At War1

Debbie and John Hooper took their cherished Chevy Camaro ZL1 to the dealer under warranty to fix a minor paint problem. Then they allege they got a call from the dealer saying they'd wrecked the car. Now they've offered a replacement, but it might not be enough.

The Hoopers didn't just buy their show-worthy black ZL1 for $60,000. They had to trade in a 2011 Camaro SS and also sell their pristine 1969 Camaro SS as well to get the new car. By all appearances, they loved their ZL1.

Dealership Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner And Dealer At War2Expand

So you can understand their shock when the Georgetown Chevrolet (one dealership run by First State Chevrolet in Delaware) called them to say that one of their employees took out their car, went on a joyride, lost control, and crashed into a telephone pole.

Dealership Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner And Dealer At War

As John Hooper explained on this post on the Camaro5 forum back in December, the dealership killed their car and didn't do a thing to help them.

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.

Things get worse from there.

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.

And the outlook didn't look rosy from there.

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?

Dealership Totals Customer's Camaro ZL1, Owner And Dealer At War

And don't think that John is telling a tall tale. The local Cape Gazette reports that the Delaware State police charged Eric Peterson with careless driving and failure to have insurance identification in possession. First State Chevrolet owner Bob Hansen told the Gazette that Peterson isn't working at the dealership anymore.

That all happened in the middle of December. On the 30th, the dealership told him they would finally be making good with replacing his car, at least that's what John thought, as he explained in this forum post.

In this post from two days ago, however, John revealed that the dealership didn't do the right thing at all — they offered to sell him another ZL1. It was in worse condition than the one he had before and while the dealership claimed their replacement ZL1 was a one-owner car, it really was a two-owner car.

I have been patient. I finally got a call on Monday (1/6) to come over to look at the car they "found" for me. They were sure I would be pleased. Imagine my surprise when the car they "found" turned out to be a trade-in on a new Stingray. The car was a 2012 ZL1, black like mine, but with a sunroof (which I do not want), 34% more miles than mine, new tires (why did it need new tires at 13,588 miles?), different wheels than mine, non-Chevrolet emblems front and back, and tinted windows. Also absolutely NO documentation on the car, even though I was told the car had more documentation than mine.

I was not even told the mileage on the car until I went out and sat in it for myself. Amazing that we had to go over all the figures first. And yes, I was to buy this car from them. They did offer $4K "feel good" (their words, not mine) money to buy the correct emblems and rims. However, nothing was mentioned about a lower price for the higher mileage.

John and Debbie left the dealership, not happy with the proposed car. They went on the Camaro5 forum and ordered themselves a CarFax, only to find that the car had two owners not one, and that it had been involved in an accident.

So they were basically trying to SELL us a 2-owner vehicle that had previous body damage, along with tinted windows, incorrect emblems, more mileage, the apparent need for new tires, and heaven only knows what else.

They called today to tell us that their original offer to buy THAT car from them was ALL they were going to (or willing to) offer. Take it or leave it. We really did not want a twice-used car with no documentation and do not feel it was a reasonable replacement for our show-winning, pristine, fully documented car with much less mileage.

So folks, almost a month later, I am still making payments on a car I do not have, and certainly cannot drive. And the dealer is unwilling to step up and "do the right thing."

That's not how the dealership sees things. I spoke with the general manager at the dealership and they told me they had gone "above and beyond" with their dealings with the Hoopers.

The dealership confirmed that they fired the employee "on the spot" and worked to provide a replacement car of not just equal but greater value than the Hoopers' ZL1.

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.3

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 almost think it's extortion," the general manager told me. "I don't think any sane person would turn down [this deal.]" He later concluded, "I almost think they're as bad as the guy who stole the car."45

The general manager explained that the dealership's insurance told them not to offer any more deals to the Hoopers and to let them either take the existing offer or not.

And that's where things stand now. The crux off the issue hangs on whether the dealership's substitute ZL1 is an acceptable replacement or not. The dealership is convinced that it is, and the Hoopers appear to believe is it not. It doesn't look pretty from here on out.

(Thanks to K-Roll and everyone else who sent in tips for this story!)

[MBAtarga]

unfreakingbelievable!

[Noah930]

Not that the stealership shouldn't be responsible (it should be, 100%), but where is this guy's own insurance company to fight this fight for him?

[BE911SC]

Sue the bastards.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by Noah930

Not that the stealership shouldn't be responsible (it should be, 100%), but where is this guy's own insurance company to fight this fight for him?

The insurance company will pay on the policy what it is required same as if the owner wrecked it himself.

Not their fight if the payout is not enough to make the owner (in his opinion) whole.

Had the owner wrecked the car himself he would be in the same financial situation he is in now.

But he did not wreck it himself. He entrusted the dealer with the proper care of his prized possession so IMHO the dealer is morally obligated to make up the difference no matter how much it costs.

[pavulon]

Not a lawyer but I can only see this going one way...the dealership's insurance is going to make the Hoopers lawyer-up but will settle the case to include the Hooper's attorney fees and a new ZL1 or the money equivalent. In the middle, the dealership's reputation will get a serious black-eye and Hoopers will loose any faith in humanity they ever have had. Everyone loses.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by pavulon

Not a lawyer but I can only see this going one way...the dealership's insurance is going to make the Hoopers lawyer-up but will settle the case to include the Hooper's attorney fees and a new ZL1 or the money equivalent. In the middle, the dealership's reputation will get a serious black-eye and Hoopers will loose any faith in humanity they ever have had. Everyone loses.

That sounds like it sums the issue up pretty well.

[Noah930]

Not true re: pavulon's prediction. The lawyers always win.

[pavulon]

Originally Posted by noah930

not true re: Pavulon's prediction. The lawyers always win.

+1

[RANDY P]

This story stinks-

The only way this deal makes sense is if the amount he's paid out isn't enough to cover a new car-
Did the idiot buy the car way over sticker? Or is he under some delusion that his car is worth MORE than a new 2014?

Why else would he be so sunk in value?

2nd thing- claim it on your own insurance- guaranteed the insurance co. will go after the dealership. They have lawyers to recoup that money they had to pay out.

rjp


(PS if that's the guy's prized possession and he gave up a mint 69 SS he's on crack. That new camaro is UGLY. Black wheels and all)

[Nickshu]

Call local newspaper. Talk to reporter about possibly doing an article about the situation. Where I live this would be front page news.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by RANDY P

This story stinks-

The only way this deal makes sense is if the amount he's paid out isn't enough to cover a new car-
Did the idiot buy the car way over sticker? Or is he under some delusion that his car is worth MORE than a new 2014?

Why else would he be so sunk in value?

2nd thing- claim it on your own insurance- guaranteed the insurance co. will go after the dealership. They have lawyers to recoup that money they had to pay out.

rjp


(PS if that's the guy's prized possession and he gave up a mint 69 SS he's on crack. That new camaro is UGLY. Black wheels and all)

They are hoping he claims it on his own ins because his provider will not pay a penny more than the current market value of a 2012 ZL1.

Then dealers ins co pays owners ins co what was paid out and they are done with it.

Owners only avenue is to go after the dealer who is the one who should be bending over backwards to make this right.

[legion]

If the owners only had collision coverage, they may be SOL. They would need comprehensive in order to sick their insurer on the dealership.

Let's hope the Camaro community is something like the Porsche community and someone will volunteer some help.

[RANDY P]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

They are hoping he claims it on his own ins because his provider will not pay a penny more than the current market value of a 2012 ZL1.

Then dealers ins co pays owners ins co what was paid out and they are done with it.

Owners only avenue is to go after the dealer who is the one who should be bending over backwards to make this right.

Only thing is, why would any ins. co pay more than the value? No insurance co would ever do that.

I mean, ya the dealership screwed up, but they only have to make him whole, not compensate him for his alleged "special" car..

rjp

[aigel]

The Crapmaro owner has full coverage insurance. He is making payments on the car, according to the article. No bank or leasing company will give you money on a car that's not fully insured.

It is simple. I would give this to my insurance company and work out an acceptable settlement with them and I am done. Then they will go after the shop while I am off buying a new car. Only problem, as others have stated is that the insurance will lowball me. I'll put up a fight and get the best deal, take the necessary loss and move on with life ...

G

[RANDY P]

bet he's kicking himself in the ass for not taking that gap coverage now...

rjp

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by RANDY P

Only thing is, why would any ins. co pay more than the value? No insurance co would ever do that.

I mean, ya the dealership screwed up, but they only have to make him whole, not compensate him for his alleged "special" car..

rjp

That was my point. No insurance company will pay more than value. Owners problem is his car was pristine / worth more and ins payout won't cover a comparable car if one can even be found for sale.

It's less hassle for the dealers ins company to deal with the owners ins co than to deal with the owner.

The issue with the dealer is they are not making him whole unless a 2 owner car with aftermarket add ons and an accident history is equal to the owners garage queen that their employee destroyed.

[aigel]

This is not anything different from someone creaming his car on the interstate, a tree falling on it or any other loss that's not caused by the owner. You always face this problem with a new car. The only upside he had here was that the dealer could have been nice and found him another pristine car for replacement. The dealer wasn't able to or didn't want to, so move on to insurance co.

G

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by pavulon

In the middle, the dealership's reputation will get a serious black-eye and Hoopers will loose any faith in humanity they ever have had. Everyone loses.

I haven't seen any mention of the dealership's name. Did I miss something, or are they getting off? For this to have meaning, we need to know the names of the dealer and insurance companies.

"the dealer is morally obligated" Dealer, moral - in the same sentence. Something is wrong with that.

[markivtruck]

what a horror story i am suprised the dealer isn't charging you for the telephone pole too. i hope you did not buy the car from them when new.