Of all the new retro-classics the only one I like is the Challenger, but to each his own.
I really don’t understand the deal with the '69 SS. Not only should selling it have given them enough money to buy two of the new car, but why sell at all if you’re not going to drive the replacement? If your main interest is showing a car, the vintage one makes more sense. Selling to get the new one would make me think someone’s interested in driving more than showing
Going back to the bailment quote, I think the highest standard needs to be met.
One could argue that both the bailor and the bailee benefit from the customer leaving the car at the dealership. The customer gets his car repaired, and the dealer makes a profit. But I think the stronger case can be made the the bailee (the dealership) primarily benefitted from the bailment. If I take my car to the shop, I benefit by having my car fixed. But I also lose, in that I have to pay for it. So for me, it’s a wash. The dealership ends up making a profit, and so there is a net benefit. That is, ‘the bailee primarily benefits’. In this particular case, the car was in the shop for work that was covered under warranty. I still think the bailee primarily benefits, because he is reimbursed by the carmaker for the work he performs. The relationship between the bailor and the bailee doesn’t change, even though the bailor isn’t paying the bill.
Thus it seems to me (a non-lawyer) that ‘the bailee must exercise highest care, i.e. is liable for any damages arising from slight negligence.’
If that’s what his rolleyes was about, then I’ll make it clear that that wasn’t my assertion. My assertion was that he (in all likelihood) can’t afford a lawyer that’s as good as the what the dealership can may very well end up with even less than he’s currently being offered.
Of course, his insurance company might help him out here, unless they’ve decided that it’s not their problem.
Again I’ll say, he needs to make sure the local news teams take this story and run with it. This is the kind of story they love and if the locals turn against the dealership they’ll eventually pony up the money or find him a new car to make sure they don’t lose customers over it. After that they can make an insurance claim or sue the employee.
This is what I was arguing in the other thread about new car depreciation. Since the car is a total loss, the insurance company owes the customers the market value of a 2012 Camaro with 10k miles on it. I contend that the market value of a car, like any other item, is not the asset value in an accounting ledger. It is what a willing buyer and seller would agree upon.
With that in mind whatever value that finally is agreed upon should be one which would allow the owners to purchase a 2012 Camaro with 10K miles. (Plus tort damages for loss of use, annoyances and inconveniences, and money associated with licensing, transfer taxes and the like to get another car). That measure of damages is what will make the parties whole.
If the insurance company wants to say, for example, that the car is only worth $40k and nobody in the country is selling such a car for that low of a price, then that is not the true market value of the car.
CarMax, which we recently established as having inflated prices, has several 2012 ZL1s with 4-24k miles at the $45-48k mark. They are neither rare nor worth any great premium over book value. I push the “idiot owners” marker up a few notches.
That is the assertion I meant. You have no basis to determine, or even estimate, the quality of legal representation either side is likely to obtain.
Ya know, you could have just said that the first time instead of rolling your eyes at me.
Right. I’m not a car guy so I have no idea how desirable this car is. It seems to be a GM production car less than two years old so there should be many out there on the market and a value should be somewhat easily ascertained.
But you are correct in that the value is not what the owners subjectively think it is. It doesn’t matter if they got a bad deal when they bought it. But it from the posts, the dealership is trying to offer them the same model but with more miles, prior damage, etc.
Whatever the value $X is of their car, one with more miles and a previous accident will be worth $X-$Y. $Y is what they are being shorted. (At least with the car value; tort damages should be extra).
There’s the crime right there. $60k for a Camaro? It must be extra bitchin’.
It was driven up from the Bahamas.
I think we all agree if you ran over some old lady one night at the county fair, you would be criminally liable.
Looking at Edmunds, it looks as if MSRP could touch $59k; if there was new-model hotness involved, there may have been some markup. So it’s not impossible that they paid “$60k” for the car, but that has absolutely nothing to do with current valuation and settlement. Nothing.
After all, Willie Brown paid something like double list price because he had to have one of the first Miatas. You could buy them for about 45% of what he paid within six months. That doesn’t mean his was worth (IIRC) $23k.
IMHO and IANAL(TG), the owners should take fair market value for the car and go shopping for the perfect replacement they so desire and deserve. The tort losses are well within the $4k they offered. This whole case is just proof that some people shouldn’t be allowed around money or cars.
You’re kidding!
IANAL. Over here, the principle would be that the owner of the car should end up no worse or better off than he started. There is no doubt that the dealer would be liable (an employer takes full responsibility for the actions of his employees), and the owner would not claim on his own insurance. The only dispute would be over the value and condition of the car before it was damaged. They would also be able to claim any out-of-pocket expenses like hire cars, legal costs etc.
I also think that the situation would be the same even if some scrote, not an employee, had broken in and stolen the car.
Couple of things:
IANAL and all that but I’ve been an insurance adjuster for 30+ years.
The dealership likely carried “garagekeepers” insurance on their policy. This protects damage to customer’s vehicle while the vehicle is in the dealer’s care, custody, and control. This covers the damage regardless of fault so their insurance could pay for the actual cash (depreciated) value (ACV) of the vehicle.
Fault or liability for the actions of the employee have no bearing here. Garagekeepers coverage is triggered since the dealer had custody of the vehicle.
Lastly, what concerns me more than anything is that some appear to believe that the owner should be paid more than the ACV of the vehicle. Whether the dealership was grossly negligent or not, or if the owner would have totalled the car himself around a telephone pole, the value of the vehicle has not changed. They only owe to make him whole which is not more than the ACV.
Oh, and one more thing. No, the owner cannot collect from BOTH his insurance and the dealer’s insurance. Typically the insurance follows the car which would be the owner’s policy; however, in the case of garagekeepers insurance, it becomes primary coverage for the vehicle. I think it can be an option to not have garagekeepers primary but it’s a huge hassle (and bad PR for the dealer) for the vehicle owner to have to use his own insurance when he had given custody of the vehicle to the dealer.
I must be. The Bahamas are islands.
Not a very useful thing to tell us when the rest of the post is lacking location information.
To spare others the trouble, this poster’s profile states Worcestershire UK for a location.
Nevertheless, ‘the principle would be that the owner of the car should end up no worse or better off than he started’ is how I understand it’s supposed to work here (U.S.) as well.
The details are still fuzzy, but it looks as if GM and a different dealership have worked things out with Camaro’s owner - he will be purchasing a leftover 2013 for the cost of his wrecked 2012, with the original dealer and GM making up the difference. Seems reasonable.