My friend sent me this... you gotta read it.
Quote:
GM: Throw out Impala lawsuit
Bankruptcy should eliminate liability, carmaker argues
David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau
General Motors Co. says a class-action suit complaining that GM fixed rear-end problems on police versions of 2007-08 Impalas, but not those owned by some 400,000 other drivers, should be thrown out.
The Detroit automaker said in court papers that it cannot be held liable for damages relating to vehicles produced before the "new" GM was created after the "old" GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009, as part of a $49.5 billion government bailout.
The suit filed by a Pennsylvania Impala owner in U.S. District Court in Detroit in June should be thrown out because it attempts "to hold new GM responsible for old GM's liabilities," GM lawyer Benjamin Jeffers said in a court filing.
New GM, which was built from the viable assets of the old company, said it only agreed to warranty obligations of cars assembled before 2009.
"New GM did not assume liability for old GM's design choices, conduct or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty, and its terms expressly preclude money damages," the response says.
The suit "is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."
GM has used this argument in an effort to block other suits from going forward, including one involving OnStar.
The Impala problem, according to the lawsuit, causes owners to burn through rear tires.
The suit wants GM to replace potentially faulty rear suspension rods. The Detroit-based automaker sold 423,000 Impalas over the two-year period.
The suit, if successful, could cost GM millions of dollars in replaced tires and parts.
It's the latest challenge by owners to automakers that limit the scope of recalls or service campaigns. It's also sparked dozens of angry complaints from owners.
Americans spend about $20 billion annually on about 200 million replacement tires, according to a 2006 government report.
Alignments and other related issues add billions in annual repair costs to the more than 250 million vehicles on American roads.
Suit: Lack of disclosure
The only owner currently named in the suit, Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pa., bought a new Impala in February 2008 and said the tires wore out within 6,000 miles.
Her GM dealer replaced the tires and provided an alignment, but didn't disclose the spindle rod issue, she said.
According to the suit, GM issued a service bulletin in 2008 for police versions of the Impala.
Last November, Trusky couldn't pass an annual inspection without getting another set of rear tires — even though the vehicle had fewer than 25,000 miles.
"Despite having knowledge of this premature wear problem, (GM) has not recalled the subject cars, which has required class members to pay the cost of fixing the defective spindle rods as well as for replacement tires and realignment," alleges the lawsuit.
GM's legal response says because the trouble stems not from incorrectly manufactured spindle rods, but rather because the rod design was faulty. And that, GM says, precludes the lawsuit from going forward.
In its July 2008 bulletin for police-owned Impalas, GM told its dealers to replace the rods, align the rear wheels and, if necessary, replace the rear tires.
Police agencies that had replaced rear tires themselves could seek reimbursement for a year.
GM: Police cars different
GM has said the police version of the Impala was different from those sold to others. It has a special electrical system and special suspension system, GM said, to accommodate law enforcement needs.
Lawyers for Trusky cite numerous complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and message boards such as Edmunds.com, carcomplaints.com and aboutautomobile.com. The government has never opened a formal investigation into the 2007 or 2008 Impala.
In January, U.S. District Judge Sean Cox in Detroit ruled that in a dispute over GM's OnStar unit, "new" GM could not be added as a defendant because of the terms of the sale of assets.
The suit was filed in 2008 naming old GM, VW, Honda and Subaru over OnStar analog systems that stopped working in February 2008, despite the fact that the owners claim OnStar promised the systems would work for the life of the vehicles, among other issues.
From The Detroit News:
http://detnews.com/article/20110818/AUTO01/108180344/GM--Throw-out-Impala-lawsuit#ixzz1VUAVrzst
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
And this is why I will never buy another GM...
So then I want to see the badges say "New GM: on the new cars.
FU Tuning
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:So then I want to see the badges say "New GM: on the new cars.
They don't need to they have already been restructured and legally changed from General Motors Corporation to General Motors Company. Legally they're not the same.
Copter wrote:Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:So then I want to see the badges say "New GM: on the new cars.
They don't need to they have already been restructured and legally changed from General Motors Corporation to General Motors Company. Legally they're not the same.
its a @!#$ty situation but thats the way it is, i work for a gm dealer and i will not buy a gm again. All their products have gone to @!#$ lately and their warrenty is getting shady as well. ive noticed a shift lately in the way they do things and it all points to higher prices, higher profit. Not about taking care of the customers. i see alot of this problem on a day to day basis. All the 2004+ w bodies wear rear tires extremely fast, maybe i should look up this bulletin at work on monday.
neubreed wrote:Copter wrote:Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:So then I want to see the badges say "New GM: on the new cars.
They don't need to they have already been restructured and legally changed from General Motors Corporation to General Motors Company. Legally they're not the same.
its a @!#$ty situation but thats the way it is, i work for a gm dealer and i will not buy a gm again. All their products have gone to @!#$ lately and their warrenty is getting shady as well. I've noticed a shift lately in the way they do things and it all points to higher prices, higher profit. Not about taking care of the customers. i see a lot of this problem on a day to day basis. All the 2004+ w bodies wear rear tires extremely fast, maybe i should look up this bulletin at work on Monday.
I disagree entirely and actually feel the exact opposite on nearly all topics you mentioned. I think they are a much stronger company that needed to shed some fat and now produce a very fine line of cars. My brother has been a Master Tech for GM for almost 10 years and agrees overall their products have been much nicer and they don't have any warranty issues. Perhaps maybe your dealership? I'm not sure of the tire wear problem but I haven't asked about it in specific and it is possible that there is a recall for it and stuff like that will always happen unfortunately. You can't design a perfect car from the get go all the time.
Government motors..... That's crazy but I'm not surprised
ʇı ɹǝʍo7 | ǝcoMonstǝrs
I like new GM stuff. Hell I love my 08 silverado. Have not found one thing i dont like about it. Ill continue to buy GM.
2004 avalanche.. love it. 2008 suburban...love it. As for the other cars,IDK. legally they aren't the same company BUT it's ignorant that they won't back up the cars they designed incorrectly. As a company investing in the future is taking care of customers and creating loyalty. DON'T give them the option of having doubts about your brand and looking elsewhere for a vehicle.
I've simply had it with the GM dealerships in this area (metro detroit)-This more the the Chevy dealerships as well.
Sales people have become crazed.....I've battled two dealerships service departments already over the "add a sale" for simple things......which is strange considering both had n issues before....noticed techs are quitting as well......
I took my son for a quick test drive in a Cruze, and the sales person has already called me back THREE times this week....this after telling him I plan on waiting until early next year...
The Impy thing just pisses me off. Man up, and just fix em' If Impalas were "old" GM, then why are they still selling them right now?
I see getting their a** handed to them on this one.....which is even funnier knowing that the fix comes from the 2000-2004 W bodies.......
I think I will keep my 1985 seems pretty solid,warranty ran out a very longggg time ago.
BuiltNBoosted wrote:I like new GM stuff. Hell I love my 08 silverado. Have not found one thing i dont like about it. Ill continue to buy GM.
At this point it's called karma-and it's going to cost them sales.
It may cost them mine......
I'm almost disappointed to drive a gm these days
I have owned a 1998 Cavalier 2200, more problems then god and all owner related lol, a 2003 Blazer 4.3L, ton of problems, a 2006 Impala LT , another one with a ton of problems, and finally I now own a 2009 Cobalt, @10,000 miles fuel pump and relay module failed and was Warrantied out by GM/Dimmit & a 2010 HHR zero issue's.
I LOVE MY 2010 HHR!!!!! Best car ever hands down, next to my 2200T Cavalier of course
Having worked in GM dealers I can tell you that GM became big dicks about warranty due to a lot of warranty fraud. As I was leaving the dealer world GM was starting to want to inspect vehicles and parts before covering repairs. Something else that did not help was customers that would bring in heavily abused, damaged, or poorly maintained vehicles and expect it to all be fixed for free under warranty. GM started "screwing" customers when customers and dealers tried "screwing" GM.
mitdr774 wrote:Having worked in GM dealers I can tell you that GM became big dicks about warranty due to a lot of warranty fraud. As I was leaving the dealer world GM was starting to want to inspect vehicles and parts before covering repairs. Something else that did not help was customers that would bring in heavily abused, damaged, or poorly maintained vehicles and expect it to all be fixed for free under warranty. GM started "screwing" customers when customers and dealers tried "screwing" GM.
True, but when they became the "discount" automaker for years, it attracks those types of customers.
I saw some pretty sad looking cavaliers/ Malibus after only a few years.....
And at what point are people going to stop crying about past lessons learned and look at a company that has begun to come around? At some point a line has to be drawn.
One of the reasons I left was due to reduced work coming in the door. Working in an area where owners bitch about everything while its under warranty, work fell off a lot.
Any car can be sad looking after a few years if the owners dont take care of them. For being a "discount" company my 96 K1500 has sure held up nicely. My 98 Z24 is still on the road.
Small list of cars in my family (none ever blew a motor or trans (only 1 blew a trans and that was my cav. lol bubble in casting of spider gear pin plus a million burn outs)):
1998 Buick LeSabre 120,000 miles perfect bought new
1996 Buick Regal 75,000 miles perfect (some rust) bought new
2003 Astro 80,000 miles most towing a boat, perfect bought new
2006 Tahoe 70,000 miles perfect bought new
2003 cavalier 35,000 miles perfect lol (trans) bought new
2003 Blazer Extreme 140,000 miles perfect condition (gone, flooded in storm) bought new
1992 Lumina Z34 160,000 miles sold perfect condition (raced) bought new
1992 Buick Century 200,000 miles slight rust mechanically perfect bought new
1986 Caprice Classic 40,000 miles no issues (gone totaled) bought new
This is just the past few GM vehicles my direct family owned. Again only major problem was the trans on my cav which part bubble in casting but most definitely my abuse. I feel confident that the new vehicles are milestones past where they were as recent as a decade ago. Much of a vehicles success is up to the owner.
Copter wrote:And at what point are people going to stop crying about past lessons learned and look at a company that has begun to come around? At some point a line has to be drawn.
I would say that point will happen when the company has
actually turned around.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
sounds like the best scam in the world to me. go out and do whatever you want, knock up a 16 year old, rob a store, burn down a church... then "restucture" yourself and claim you can't be held accountable for the "old you" now since the "new you" is different.
if anybody tries it, let me know if it works or not.
I love how everyone is justifying it too. "I have owned so many gm cars and had no issues" is how they justify "new gm" turning their back on a major issue be cause "it was the old me that did it". You guys wouldn't be saying that if you owned one of the cars with these issues. Kinda pathetic.
(tabs) wrote:z yaaaa wrote:its not much fun trying to argue with a wall.
oh, trust us, we know
If You don't like it maybe you should re-write laws and the legal system to a way that produces perfect companies. When you decide to do this let me know and i will help you run for president.
So what you are saying is because they are legally "allowed" to say that, it's right? You're an idiot. Still.
(tabs) wrote:z yaaaa wrote:its not much fun trying to argue with a wall.
oh, trust us, we know
