I think he actually may not own the car. He might not have a legal claim to diminished value, losses, etc.

If it was under lease it might technically be owned by the lease company....

 

What a MESS!!! These guys should be SHOT!!!

 

ard is correct...it was a leased vehicle that he was about to purcase at bring back in a couple days...three pages already...I'm going to get after Mark to get in here with the straight poop...

 

This is unbelievable, they should be bending over backwards to make this right.

 

so far, they have only asked Mark to bend over

 

This is NUTS!

I am so sorry to hear about this. This is one of the big reasons when I was buying my car - I looked high and low for a sold shop to take it to and one that I trusted to handle the work and to be honest.

For me living in South Florida - I have used USP Motorsports, which has been nothing but a blessing to me. First class all the way around.

I am so sorry to hear about this. I sure hope you come out on top!

Would love to hear how things are shaping up for you. I pray you will be taken care of!

 

Holy Crap!

 

The diminished value may still apply because the dealer may apply it to the lost value of the car. If the dealer does not, then you would be correct. It will depend on what the return policy is for the car based on the lease. If there is no penalty for damaged car history, then diminished value would not be necessary.

 

By "dealer" I assume you mean "leasing company"...

I've never leased a car, so I have no idea what the language is around the lessee's responsibility for repairs, insurance, return, etc. It would be shocking to discover that DV has entered into the process at the request of a leasing company...virtually all businesses involved in the automotive sales leasing and sales processes ignore DV. DV seems to be soley an issue with the individual consumer who usually bears the brunt.

If the leasing company wants DV, they would have a claim against Mark! He would then turn to his insurer to protect him- Mark and his insurer would need to sue the shop and driver who caused the loss.

I suspect fees to litigate by all parties would exceed the car's cash value.

This is such a sad story...

A

 

This now starts to make sense when you throw in the issue of the lease. When I say "make sense" I don't necessarily mean that it's right or fair. I would imagine that the lease company would do a walk around on the car at time of turn-in; and note obvious discrepancies...and...as ARD said...depending upon the language of the lease, may hold the lesee to a certain standard of fix-it or pay. After all....the lease company is going to have to auction off the car and get as much as they can for it...in which case, it would be a contractual agreement between the lease company and the lesee. The lesee would have to try to get the dealership to own up...which they should if they're on the up and up. But if they don't, then it's going to be the lesee's insurance company that goes after the dealership. A tangled web to be sure.

I hadn't really thought of all the nuances involved in a lease agreement, but this certainly brings in an interesting facet.

 

I would agree with ard that the aspect of the owner suing for diminished value would fail, but there are a few things to consider. He might be able to deduct the amount from the days left in his lease (aka sue for not being responsible for the rest of the payments) and also damages for all the aftermarket modifications done to the vehicle. This is going to be kind of tough to prove since he was planning on keeping the car, but I would think that if he can prove that the aftermarket parts are worth more than the stock parts and prove the intention to return the car to stock, there could be a claim there as well. It might not be worth it because I dont know how much he has into the car or if he retained his stock parts, but with some of the members on here spending 35k in mods, that might be something to consider. Also, it would be helpful for the owner to have evidence that modified Gt2s are "worth more" or "sell for more money" than a comparable stock car (which, unfortunately, I dont think is the case).

This is just a bad situation all around and I wish the best for the owner. The behavior of some of these dealers continue to baffle me. If they are actually suing the owner for damages, it wouldnt be totally shocking to me and that is a VERY sad state of affairs. I mean, we all know that when we bring in our fast/hot cars to these dealers for work, the mechanics/detailers love to joyride in them, but this is ridiculous. Like I said, I hope there is a favorable outcome for the owner. What a loss. I guess these gt2s are becoming a very rare breed.

 

The owners intent was to purchase the vehicle, which I am sure is now gone(his intent). Why is the intent to own the car gone? because of the accident. I would not at any time discredit DV. Not saying that it applies, but it may. Definitely needs to explore every avenue to make that sleezball business pay dearly.

 

Couple of things to consider...

The shop will only be required to pay the "loss/damages" for the repair of the vehicle. Their insurance should easily cover it. The shop won't be liable for any "diminished value" in guestimate, based on what happened to a friend of mine who also owns a shop and also had an employee total a customer's Corvette.

The ONLY thing the shop is required to do is return the car to it's previous condition. I am, however, surprised that they asked for his insurance to cover the injuries to the person who wrecked the car. I assume he was "on the clock" when it happened, and the repair shop/dealer's insurance will cover it.

Trust me, if any of you ever find yourselves in this situation, you'll want the sun, the moon, and the stars, and be lucky to get your car back to "pre-crash" condition.

Mike

 

Because they will argue that he could just as easily have left the dealership and gotten into an accident. They'll claim it hadn't happened yet (the purchase from the leasing agent), therefore they are not responsible.

I'm guessing at all of this, based on what I've seen unfold in similar cases... It sucks, no doubt, and I'd be plenty upset as well, but unfortunately this happens all to often, and I've never heard of a dealership bending over backwards to take care of a customer... Generally they pay to have the car repaired and returned to the owner... Done.

Mike

 

Thanks for throwing my name in here Chuck. :-)
Yes, I am an attorney and yes I am good at what I do, but I am only licensed in Arkansas and Texas, although I do have many corporate clients around the country and am able to handle their business transactions wherever they may be. With that said, I am not familiar enough Florida insurance or bailment law to offer any concrete advice in this situation. Although, and this is not legal advice and I'm not forming and do not intend to form any attorney-client relationship with any of you guys (or girls), general rules for damned, plaintiff's attorneys (I believe the public refers to this segment of my profession as "ambulance chasers") is to sue EVERYONE and see what sticks and who pays. The damage to the vehicle is generally the responsibility of the repair shop. The liability for the accident/injuries is generally the repair shop, as the employee was operating with the permission of the employer (although there is an argument that driving the car at those speeds was outside the scope of employment) and the employer will be liable for the employee's actions through a doctrine known as respondeat superior (I hate this doctrine by the way because my corporate clients can't always control what their dumbass employees are doing even with lectures, policies and threats of termination, but they still end up being responsible for the idiots). Now, there are several theories under which one could make a case against Mark's insurance including the most significant one you guys have already touched upon, Mark signed a document (which I haven't seen so I'm guilty of a lawyer's mortal sin by guessing) which I'm guessing authorized the mechanic/service provider to use the car for purposes of verifying or effectuating the repairs/service work. There are also many theories under which Mark's insurance company (and Mark) will likely skate on the liability. My favorits skating theory is THAT FU*%ER WAS EXCEEDING ANY REASONABLE BOUNDS OF EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED AUTHORITY TO OPERATE MY VEHICLE AND WAS ACTING IN A GROSS AND INTENTIONALLY NEGLIGENCE MANNER, THUS NO SUCH PERMISSION EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. The foregoing legal theory is known in layman's terms as "the F*%KTARD deserved everything he got because he was asking for it." As for the innocent victims in the other vehicle or perhaps standing on nearby sidewalks, the respondeat superior theory should apply to remove Mark's insurance company (and Mark). NOW FOR THE PART YOU WILL ALL GROAN ABOUT AND THE PART WHY EVERYONE HATES LAWYERS. Florida state law could change all of the foregoing "general/basic legal theories." Some states decide that it is best to just make one party (read insurance company) legally liable in the event of an accident like this and pass a law which can take many forms, but basically says we are going to protect the general public against the possibility of innocent people being hurt by a bad actor (employee of service company, friend, car owner's employee, children, car thiefs), who also doesn't have deep pockets, by making the owner of the car and vicariously the owner's insurance company responsible for everything in all cases, except when the car is stolen and sometimes they let such absurd legislation extend to thiefs. In states that have such statutes, if your car is involved, it doesn't matter who's fault it really was, just whose car was in the hands of the at fault driver. States with such sinister statutes also have more strict mandatory insurance policies and tend to immediately tow your car if you are pulled over and do not have proof of insurance. The additional theory behind such weird legisltation is that the shear volume of policies written in the state will balance the losses out between the insurance companies. Insurance companies have responded in part by running credit checks and doing further investigation into their insureds to try to let their computer programs and risk modeling software tell them which drivers make poorer choices and increase the risk of an insured loss event. More risk = Higher Premium.

Just my $.02/fraction of a billable second. :-) Please do not rely on the foregoing, I am not licensed in your jurisdiction and every case is different and the legal advice (which I did not give above) I would give you will most definitely depend on your particular facts and the jurisdiction in which your *** sits . . . I mean your assets are located.