Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
561 - 579 of 579 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
I mostly agree; that is why you should act responsibly.
I striked out 'predatory' and 'futile' for you since the victim is seeking compensation for damages and harm. The lawyer is just "doing his/her job" to paint you in the worse possible light to win the case and maximize the result. Try to not help.

You can bet your britches that GM and you will be sued.
Even if someone follows your futile recommendations (lack of loaners, unwillingness of dealers, lack of rental cars, unable to front the money for rental and fuel costs that GM may reimburse a year or two down the road), that won't stop such a predatory plaintiff or lawyer from making the argument that someone did not do enough. The predatory plaintiff or lawyer can always move the goalposts.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt LT
Joined
·
422 Posts
I think you are being a little dramatic. Your assumption all liability is now on Bolt owners is a stretch. It will be up to a judge if there is a lawsuit. The main thing is to follow reasonable guidelines from the manufacture and not get to up tight about this. Take a breath.
Bolt-ish is being dramatic to attract attention, but isn't actually wrong. If your car (Bolt or otherwise) causes damage to somebody else or their property, it's YOUR liability and YOUR insurance must cover it. You can attempt to get reimbursed for the damage from GM on a product liability claim, and should, but if there's damage you are responsible for it. Not GM. You are the vehicle owner or lessee, and are responsible for whatever happens as a result of your possessing the car. Full stop.

The fact that there is no reasonable possibility of meeting GM's recommendations for storing the vehicle (because the risk may be too high to assume for continuing to drive it) is no excuse. The fact that it's your only car (perhaps) and you have to get around is no excuse. It may be a defense against an unreasonably excessive claim if you tried to meet the recommendation and documented that. It might be possible to drag GM in on a joint & several claim. It won't be a complete defense if the plaintiff against you has even an halfway competent lawyer. So check your insurance coverage; an increase might be in order.

IMO the only way to fix this is for GM to crank up the loaner program (with the Bolt stored in the dealer's possession, away from public access), or to vastly increase the buyback program. Either way, Bolts need to be taken off the road immediately, if GM's statements in the recent news are taken at face value (the courts will certainly take them at face value absent really good evidence to the contrary) until some resolution of the recall occurs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
it's YOUR liability and YOUR insurance must cover it.
Nice post, but I wonder about this. Insurance can argue that you acted outside reasonable use given the known manufacturing defect and GM's recommendations. It won't be the first time that each side says the other pays and customer is left handing in the middle. I actually think it is likely.

I would most certainly grab max insurance and umbrella coverage if I kept the car but I don't consider either a failsafe. Like you, I think the only reasonable and responsible action is to return these cars to GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,526 Posts
Nice post, but I wonder about this. Insurance can argue that you acted outside reasonable use given the known manufacturing defect and GM's recommendations. It won't be the first time that each side says the other pays and customer is left handing in the middle. I actually think it is likely.
If that was true then your insurance wouldn't pay you for damage to your car that was caused by something dumb that you did. You buy insurance to cover unexpected expenses, whether they're caused by your or someone else. If what you've done doesn't rise to the level of criminal negligence then it's hard to see how the insurance company could wriggle out of the claim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
Like you, I think the only reasonable and responsible action is to return these cars to GM.
For most customers, starting a repurchase is really the best or least bad way of doing this, given the difficulties with actually finding loaner or rental cars and willing dealers (also, posters have said that GM may allow for either repurchase or loaner / rental car, but not both).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
Is that the contract language ? I'm ashamed to say that I have never read the entire contract in detail.
If car insurance companies followed your reasoning, they would refuse to pay for damages in car crashes (which is by far the largest liability risk that most people who drive cars have). Remember that many drivers ignore or forgot or never knew many recommendations for safer driving that they may have (or not) heard in driving school or read (or not read) in the owner's manual of their cars.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt LT
Joined
·
422 Posts
Interesting side note: if the battery were being transported by truck, it would probably have to be placarded as 4.1 (flammable solid) or 4.2 (spontaneously combustible) given current knowledge. The following standards apply for transporting most placarded materials:

Parking Placarded Vehicle Not Transporting Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 Explosives
You may park a placarded vehicle (not laden with explosives) within 5 feet of the travelled part of the road only if your work requires it. Do so only briefly. Someone must always watch the vehicle when parked on a public roadway or shoulder. Do not uncouple a trailer and leave it with hazardous material on a public street. Do not park within 300 feet of an open fire.

Attending Parked Vehicles
The person watching a placarded vehicle must:
  • Be in the vehicle awake, not in the sleeper berth , or within 100 feet of the vehicle and have it within clear view,
  • Be aware of the hazards of the materials being transported,
  • Know what to do in emergencies, and
  • Be able to move the vehicle if needed.
---

GM's recommendations are onerous and almost impossible to follow. But it could be worse.


EDIT: also, the placard requirements for 4.1 and 4.2 apply for loads of 1,001 lb. or more. So if GM wants to ship modules instead of assembled batteries, that might be a reason to do it. Increases their shipping options.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt LT
Joined
·
422 Posts
If that was true then your insurance wouldn't pay you for damage to your car that was caused by something dumb that you did. You buy insurance to cover unexpected expenses, whether they're caused by your or someone else. If what you've done doesn't rise to the level of criminal negligence then it's hard to see how the insurance company could wriggle out of the claim.
Lots of cars have been recalled for fire problems, with people continuing to drive them pending notification that parts are available and it's time to bring them in. A fair number of them caught fire due to the defect and burned down, occasionally damaging others. Insurance covered those situations. I can't recall a case, though, where the carmaker publicly said that you should not park them within 50 feet of another vehicle (or for that matter anything combustible). THIS is what makes the vehicles a public hazard that must be removed from the road. And the vehicle owners/operators must be assisted by the manufacturer in doing that, because it's not the owners or operators' fault that the problem exists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
I called the Bolt EV concierge line. I was told no more buy backs or trade swaps (MSRP swaps), and the only thing they are offering is a long term rental. They said I should be getting something in the mail soon about such.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt LT
Joined
·
422 Posts
...posters have said that GM may allow for either repurchase or loaner / rental car, but not both).
That's logical. Either option removes the car from the road. The loaner is essentially the same as the car being dropped off for service, but parts aren't available, so substitute transportation is provided. The buyback is turning over the vehicle to GM permanently, leaving the owner to find their own substitute transportation. If the loaner program were functional (it doesn't seem to be at the moment, based on other comments), it would probably be the best way to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Don't believe me. Believe GM

And fwiw, your liability existed before GM's latest CYA which I interpret as a preventive move to avoid paying punitive damages.

You should be clear that GM is making decisions to protect GM, not you. You should be doing the same for yourself, even if you disregard the well-being of others.
"You should be clear that GM is making decisions to protect GM, not you. You should be doing the same for yourself"

I more or less strongly agree with this. The problem is that, a certain Supreme Court decision notwithstanding (and leaving aside those of us who happen to be attorneys) persons are persons and corporations are corporations (hence my "more or less.") I think we can all bet the rent money and then some that there isn't a single decision or announcement which GM has made throughout the course of this seemingly never-ending saga that hasn't been thoroughly vetted if not dictated by some of the best-paid legal talent that the corporate world has to offer. Bolt owners, however - even those of us who happen to be attorneys - have lives to live, places we need some (hopefully safe) way to transport ourselves to and from. We also have cars which, depending on when and where the battery was manufactured, may represent very different levels of risk. My 2019 LT was assembled, with a Korean battery, in October 2018. Accordingly, as soon as it became apparent that GM has no idea when it might be able to replace the battery with a "certified safe" one I took steps to arrange for alternate transportation, both immediately and for the long-term. I'll never know with any certainty, but I'm pretty sure that I would have behaved differently if my Bolt had a Michigan battery or even if it was a 2017 or 2018 instead of a "Korean 2019."
 

·
Registered
2021 Bolt LT
Joined
·
490 Posts
The negative opinion i have of the legal profession definitely rings true with, get all the money you can by blaming everyone. It's sad we are in the group everyone. So i have to call the concierge today and see how to get that car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Yes.

Return them all to GM and use loaners until GM comes up with a solution you like. GM is telling you the same thing by declaring that it is not responsible for fire related damage that you cause by continuing to use the car. I'm just sad that owners ignored the public risk until GM reminded them of the financial liability.
This is not my decision. It is the responsibility of NHSTA and GM. You guys need to start quoting court cases where we are liable for a recall vs the manufacturer. Otherwise, I think you are trying to just alarm everyone and create chaos.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt LT
Joined
·
422 Posts
With the Bolt, I was hoping that GM had improved. The car certainly seemed pretty good (and still does, except for that little recall problem). But otherwise ... family and myself has had 5 GM cars in my lifetime. Parents' Chevy truck was basically OK (though GM cheaped out on the "towing package" and left off a transmission cooler, the need for which the parents discovered the first time they took the trailer out for a trip); it was too big and thirsty for a daily driver, so when they got rid of the trailer the truck went with the package, replaced with a Tacoma. The family bus as a kid was a '57 Chevy wagon, which lasted 10 years and punished us through all of them (took my driving test in the beast, including parallel parking without power steering), finally being dumped for a Dodge because of age, repair needs, and pervasive rust (all not uncommon at the time, so the annoyance had just built up to the breaking point). Parents had a '70s Malibu that was part of the paint recall generation, where GM paid for a visit to Earl Scheib; also kind of clunky, but they got some miles out of it before finally going Toyota and not looking back. I had an Opel, which was a nice car to drive but a maintenance nightmare, developing terminal engine problems (at least on the budget I had at the time) before 100K km; replaced by a Ford which wasn't all that much better, but did last until about 125K km before big bills loomed. And now the Bolt, very nice car, but with a major problem. Let's just say I never had issues like this with Toyotas - plenty of small problems, but none of them actually unfixable or preventing use of the vehicle. Though the Honda was another story - almost GM in character outside of its bulletproof engine.

Bottom line, I think, is that if GM can't do something reasonable with a loaner, I'll complete the buyback and we'll become a one-car family using the old Prius. And I might be looking for a replacement from Toyota for that, or a second Toyota if we end up really needing one. But the Bolt was my fling with GM, and they've blown it badly despite the basic car being pretty good. [Yes, I know, it's LG's battery, but it's GM's CAR. If suppliers can't be chosen or managed properly, that's GM's fault, and it's GM's responsibility to get it fixed. If neither can fix it, the car's dead and it's GM's fault. So don't try to spread it around at the end-user level; the LG part of it is interesting but not relevant.] Though also at the end-user level, if there's ultimately a over-arching class action, it should rope in both GM and LG (GM would likely do that anyway), and I'll join it simply because of how badly this is being handled, even though I'll likely get about $10 for my trouble once the lawyers are paid.

edit: typos
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
Latest InsideEVs pod has a short discussion on the Bolt woes, starting at 1h27m

(35) We Talk To Ford's EV Chief, We Drive a Model S with Yoke and VW ID.4 AWD - YouTube

Notes: It's a shame, GM never put enough effort into the Bolt, they need to buy them all back, but they're going to drag it out as long as possible ("totally screw everyone over").
Public perception is getting bad. This is hurting the industry as a whole. LG's reputation/future on the line. "This had been my fear". They do think this is a one-off.
 
561 - 579 of 579 Posts
Top