Exactly the point here. The car was totaled.The specifics of his financing deal doesn't change anything as to what caused the Bolt to be totaled.
Nope, we are on the course.We're staying off the main road. Bad financing did not cause the incident.
Actually, it is mixed fault, not exclusively the fault of one or the other.Let's take a step back here.
The story is skewed here.
It implies that GM is responsible for it.
There is no GM fault in here. The article is putting a wrong perspective.
On another car forum that I read more of some years back, negative equity situations (often increased by rolling negative equity into a new car loan on a heavily discounted vehicle with the loan close to the MSRP) were common. Lots of people are not very careful with their personal finances.To add to that thought, who would buy a $40k new vehicle and stretch their finances so thin that being reimbursed at less than that value when taking a loss creates financial hardship? Perhaps Covid caused job loss or something, but it still seems likely a series of poor financial decisions were made.
Agreed.That doesn't absolve GM/LG from liability if the fire was due to a defect in manufacturing, but the person shouldn't have created a situation in which an emergency arose from a loss of their vehicle.
I don't actually think that is the case. I mean, for some people, sure. But I don't think so for a lot of people.Here's the practical point: the fires and GM's reaction to them have basically poisoned the Bolt brand.
No. This situation is not unique. It’s just getting attention here because it’s another convenient way to paint GM in a bad light over this battery-fire fiasco.Wouldn't the real solution here be for GM to give the guy a new car?
I'm sure GM would go back in time and toss $12k at the guy (or got him into a new Bolt) instead of what ended up happening (story being written up about the owner's situation).No. This situation is not unique. It’s just getting attention here because it’s another convenient way to paint GM in a bad light over this battery-fire fiasco.
The only “real solution” here is to mandate gap insurance on stupid car deals ... just like PMI exists for stupid house deals.
Yes, but the question isn't whether or not he did anything to cause his Bolt to burn.Again, his financing deal had NOTHING to do with the fire. He should have purchased GAP insurance in hindsight, but that doesn't change the fact he himself did nothing to cause his Bolt to burn.
Based off reports I've read about the more recent fires that happened post initial recall, seems GM has been telling those owners to pound sand just like Scott. Hopefully those other owners at least had GAP coverage.Yes, but the question isn't whether or not he did anything to cause his Bolt to burn.
The question is around the "gap" that was left, which looks to have a lot to do with the financing deal.
From the article:
"After getting the payout from the insurance company, Scott still had $12,000 still owing on the debt. "
Now, do I think GM should have done more? Yep.
Do I think they should have done more as part of the warranty? Technically, possibly not. I think GM is responsible for this, but not necessarily as part of the warranty. It is possible the wording in the warranty does exclude fire damage or things like that. But that doesn't mean GM isn't still responsible. It just means it isn't part of the warranty...
These things happen, regardless of battery fires, with car companies (and other businesses).
It would be great if he didn't have to sue.
But this is one of the reasons we have lawyers.
I really think he needs to talk to an attorney. Not all attorneys are that expensive. Not all cases end up going all the way to court. Frequently businesses refuse customers for things they know they would lose if it got to court, because they also know many people won't push back.
It's not great, and I wish GM hadn't done that, but it's not something just GM does...
He needs to talk to an attorney...
The fact is, even if he had gap insurance, I still think he should talk to an attorney if GM wasn't offering him a replacement car... Especially with the fires that have happened since. I'm sure some attorneys would love to talk to him.
I think they are treading lightly around this, probably because they are afraid of "setting a precedent" with what they do, until they know how they want to handle this.Based off reports I've read about the more recent fires that happened post initial recall, seems GM has been telling those owners to pound sand just like Scott. Hopefully those other owners at least had GAP coverage.
I don't know if GM has said either. "Final" fix I think is something users say, and may change if there are further updates. It may turn out the fix provides more detailed diagnostics which might lead to even better understanding of the problem? Time will tell.GM is basically saying that the 2nd software update is the final fix, and that there's no problem now.
Final fix is what GM told the NHTSA to get the stop sale order and safety recall closed. You can read the specific wording in the NHTSA notice.I don't know if GM has said either. "Final" fix I think is something users say, and may change if there are further updates. It may turn out the fix provides more detailed diagnostics which might lead to even better understanding of the problem? Time will tell.
Found it:I didn't keep the link but it was in a cwerdna post