Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
61 - 80 of 137 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Found it:
Dealers will be notified on November 13, 2020. GM will notify customers pursuant to the customer notification strategy that GM reviewed with NHTSA on November 12, 2020. Owner notifications of the final remedy are estimated to occur in two phases; the first on May 13, 2021 to address 2019 model year vehicles and the second on May 31, 2021 to address remaining vehicles. The final remedy will be executed under bulletin N202311731. Until the final remedy is available, an interim remedy is executed under bulletin N202311730.

Looks like they used the term "Final remedy" when talking about rolling it out. This was a statement made before they released it.
My guess is they thought it was going to be final. That didn't work out.
<sigh>
Keep in mind that he term "final remedy" was used specifically in conjunction with the "temporary remedy" that had come before it. This type of wording is only used to satisfy NHTSA requirements. Now that there is evidence of the "final remedy" not having the full intended effect, it is almost certain that they will be taking additional action.

If I had to guess, I'd wager that GM (or at least some engineers within GM) anticipated this was the likely outcome. After all, the educated portion of the public saw it coming from a mile away.
 

·
Super Moderator
2020 Chevrolet Bolt
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
...Underwater can even happen when buying a used car on conservative terms: when I bought my Bolt, I made almost a 50% down payment. Great. No way that'll go underwater! Except that between market conditions and the fires recall, the value of my Bolt (KBB) dropped to half what I paid for it after about 6 months. Which did put me slightly underwater...the current car-pricing panic has pushed the value back up some...So the loan balance is again within the likely payoff amount...
I'm seeing used 2017 Bolts for about $19k right now. Do I understand correctly that you purchased a used Bolt for more than $38k?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,275 Posts
Keep in mind that he term "final remedy" was used specifically in conjunction with the "temporary remedy" that had come before it. This type of wording is only used to satisfy NHTSA requirements. Now that there is evidence of the "final remedy" not having the full intended effect, it is almost certain that they will be taking additional action.

If I had to guess, I'd wager that GM (or at least some engineers within GM) anticipated this was the likely outcome. After all, the educated portion of the public saw it coming from a mile away.
GM just had to look at Hyundai and the Kona EV to see what was going to happen if they tried a similar approach of trying to fix a hardware problem with software. But despite Hyundai's endgame (battery replacements after software fix failed) they tried the exact same approach, and WOW, they're gonna end up just like Hyundai.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
I don’t understand the sympathy for Scott.

You buy a vehicle; you insure it, right?

You insure it for “unexpected loss” - whatever form that loss takes.

If Scott would’ve been T-boned, totaling his Bolt, the result would’ve been the same - because it was his fault that he failed to insure himself adequately. He signed on a bad loan, drove the vehicle while “upside-down” on it, and he got burned (no pun intended). This situation happens all the time.

People here want GM to make it right for him, but it’s not their problem - just like it wouldn’t be the problem of the guy who T-boned him.

Now - he can always sue GM, but good luck with that. First question out of the judge’s mouth will be, “why didn’t you get gap insurance on this obviously bad car loan?”

And then he will drop the gavel and rule in GM’s favor because pleading ignorance in Court never works!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
I don’t understand the sympathy for Scott.
It is really quite simple, and has been stated more than once:
If a car that is at risk of fire due to manufacturer defect is GM's problem (and it is), then a car that goes up in flames for the same manufacturer defect is also.

I won't play internet lawyer with you, but I will say that GM's behavior is reprehensible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
It is really quite simple, and has been stated more than once:
If a car that is at risk of fire due to manufacturer defect is GM's problem (and it is), then a car that goes up in flames for the same manufacturer defect is also.
No.
There’s the purchase, and then there’s the insurance for the purchase. This is nothing new.

You know what (?) ... this story is so dumb that it defies logic. What’s the “fire rate” on these batteries? Isn’t it something like 10 fires out of 68,000 produced?? That’s like .02 %, right? Infinitesimally small.

What are the chances this story is even real?? Almost zero chance of getting one of these batteries AND the unlucky guy ALSO signs for an obviously bad loan, agreeing to pay $500/month for 8 years??

If this is a true story then Scott did have the gap ... it was between his ears!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,275 Posts
No.
There’s the purchase, and then there’s the insurance for the purchase. This is nothing new.

You know what (?) ... this story is so dumb that it defies logic. What’s the “fire rate” on these batteries? Isn’t it something like 10 fires out of 68,000 produced?? That’s like .02 %, right? Infinitesimal small.

What are the chances this story is even real?? Almost zero chance of getting one of these batteries AND the unlucky guy ALSO signs for an obviously bad loan, agreeing to pay $500/month for 8 years??

If this is a true story then Scott did have the gap ... it was between his ears!
Ok, I think we need to back away from the tin foil now. Your arguments were mostly rational up until now. Personally insulting the owner's intelligence (criticize his decisions, sure, but why personally attack?) is crossing the line. Plus we don't know the full details of why he was so upside down, we're only guessing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Ok, I think we need to back away from the tin foil now. Your arguments were mostly rational up until now. Personally insulting the owner's intelligence (criticize his decisions, sure, but why personally attack?) is crossing the line. Plus we don't know the full details of why he was so upside down, we're only guessing.
But “Scott” went to the media with his story, trying to shame GM for not giving him a new vehicle when it was clearly his fault for under-insuring the bad loan that he agreed to (without any interference whatsoever from GM).

Look - I’m no “GM Apologist”. There are others here who do a better job than I ever could. But I’m backing them on this one. These are two parallel situations that do not intersect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
969 Posts
But “Scott” went to the media with his story, trying to shame GM for not giving him a new vehicle when it was clearly his fault for under-insuring the bad loan that he agreed to (without any interference whatsoever from GM).

Look - I’m no “GM Apologist”. There are others here who do a better job than I ever could. But I’m backing them on this one. These are two parallel situations that do not intersect.
I'm not backing GM here. But even if GM did a generous "right thing" (e.g. topped up the insurance payout to what it is paying for buyback offers, or even topped it up to what the customer paid without mileage/use deduction), this customer would likely still be in a negative equity hole of his own making (though less than $12k).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
If Scott would’ve been T-boned, totaling his Bolt, the result would’ve been the same -
Not quite. If you're T-Boned, you can either (A) call your insurance, or (B) call the other party's insurance and tell them to make it right, or a combination of the two. You don't even need collision insurance at all for them to pay for your repairs (but in that case, you need to make a credible threat of lawsuit).

This guy just needs to file the paperwork for suit, and GM will cough-up at-least $12k. $12k is barely worth a phone call with their counsel, and there is significant risk that a judge would find them at fault anyways.

(if you're T-boned by a hit&run and they get away, then, yes, the result would be the same. But GM doesn't have the luxury of saying "hey, the nameplate burned off, that doesn't look like our product!")

it was clearly his fault for under-insuring the bad loan that he agreed to
People are forgetting basic liability here. If somebody trashes your stuff, you can sue them. You can also collect from your insurance, and your insurer will sue them. But that's optional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
I'm not backing GM here. But even if GM did a generous "right thing" (e.g. topped up the insurance payout to what it is paying for buyback offers, or even topped it up to what the customer paid without mileage/use deduction), this customer would likely still be in a negative equity hole of his own making (though less than $12k).
This entire tangent of inadequate insurance is a red herring dancing on the nose of a clown.

Read the story as if Scott had paid cash, and was now being offered $21k by insurance. He goes to GM and asks for a buyback or MSRP replacement of his car that went up in flames due to a GM manufacturing defect, and is told to pound sand.

The best I can hope for here is that GM is sued in a class-action lawsuit by all of those Bolt owners treated like Scott was, that GM pays out millions per case, and its name is dragged through the mud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
969 Posts
This entire tangent of inadequate insurance is a red herring dancing on the nose of a clown.

Read the story as if Scott had paid cash, and was now being offered $21k by insurance. He goes to GM and asks for a buyback or MSRP replacement of his car that went up in flames due to a GM manufacturing defect, and is told to pound sand.
If he had paid cash, then he probably paid $31.5-$34k based on typical rebates at the time (car was an LT trim). Since the tax credit of $7.5k was still in effect, his net after that would have been $24k-$26.5k. Yet his remaining loan balance is close to $34k...

So even if GM topped up his $21k insurance payout to $34k (based on LT with all of the optional possible on the LT and no usage / mileage deduction), he would barely cover his loan. But the buyback offers include a usage / mileage deduction, so if GM topped up to equivalent of a buyback offer, he would still be in a negative equity hole.

If GM were interested in preserving goodwill, it should have done more. But even if GM did, the customer would still likely be in a debt hole of his own making, although smaller than $12k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Overall, [Tesla] prices have generally gone down.
I think that is true, or stayed about the same. But that ignores inflation and tech added to the car. E.g., the Model 3 LR started out in mid 2018 with 312 mile range, no AWD, and no assisted driving for around $50k. It now costs about the same but has 353 mile range, a heat pump, an octovalve, AWD, matrix headlights, basic assisted driving, and a much improved auto-pilot computer that translates into better safety.

That is a lot of value in 3 short years. The flip side is that the federal tax credit existed for Tesla in 2018 for those eligible to claim it, although one can argue how much that put in Tesla's coffers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
People are so hung up on the $12K. That's Scott's problem.

The fact that their vehicle went up in flames due to a manufacturing defect is quite obviously Chevy's problem. Denying the warranty claim is pretty shocking and completely indefensible. You're busy buying back other Bolts over the potential for this to happen, but yet when it actually does happen, it's not your problem? That is utter nonsense.

Chevy should have replaced the vehicle, or repaired it on their dime. Scott should have a repaired/replaced vehicle, and his original loan balance of $33K still due. The insurance company should have paid zero.
 

·
Registered
2020 Chevrolet Bolt Premier - Kinetic Blue Metallic
Joined
·
81 Posts
It is quite possible that Scott lumped his student or consumer loans up with his car, as he stated in his video's description of the story that this was his first new car. I don't think GM owes him any money, the missing $12k is on him. However, GM owes him and all the fire victims a new Bolt EV or GM car of equivalent value.

In the other cases where the Bolt fire caused property damage, that's on the insurance company and not GM. If my toaster burns my house down from a defect, that's not on the toaster company to pay for my new house. The toaster company should recall them, but I don't think that they are liable for any property damage.

If GM is liable for property damage then oil companies should be liable for increasing flood insurance payouts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,275 Posts
the story's author reached out to him and several other Bolt owners who had the misfortune to lose their Bolts from an apparent battery fire.
Yep. Scott waited a whole year to "go to the media" and borrowed money to cover the $12k he's out as part of some master plan to take down GM? LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Yep. Scott waited a whole year to "go to the media" and borrowed money to cover the $12k he's out as part of some master plan to take down GM? LOL
Well, we don't know how much of this story is even true. If it's not completely fabricated, there's very likely some distortion, exaggeration, and embellishment involved. For example, he (allegedly) said something like "my son could've been killed". Was he putting his son to bed every night in the back seat of his Bolt? I mean ... look at the judgement here! It's possible!

And, yes - it is "Scott" who gets credit for "going to the media" because ultimately it was his choice to tell the story ... and tell it the way he did. Just like it was his choice to sign for a bad loan - creating the whole problem in the first place!

Very succinctly, here's my advice to "Scott" (I'll call it "The 4 D's"): DON'T DO DUMB DEALS ... and you won't find yourself in these kind of predicaments - looking for someone to bail you out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,613 Posts
The fact that their vehicle went up in flames due to a manufacturing defect is quite obviously Chevy's problem. Denying the warranty claim is pretty shocking and completely indefensible. You're busy buying back other Bolts over the potential for this to happen, but yet when it actually does happen, it's not your problem? That is utter nonsense.

Chevy should have replaced the vehicle, or repaired it on their dime. Scott should have a repaired/replaced vehicle, and his original loan balance of $33K still due. The insurance company should have paid zero.
That's my analysis assuming the fire was due to a defect in manufacturing, which hasn't been established yet.

GM should be extremely interested in getting the vehicle into their possession to investigate the root cause since fires are their #1 EV problem at the moment.

If the fire was due to a defect, GM was extremely fortunate the car burned on a lot and not in someone's garage. Everyone was fortunate to have that outcome rather than the more likely scenario of the vehicle burning in a garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
The fact that their vehicle went up in flames due to a manufacturing defect is quite obviously Chevy's problem. Denying the warranty claim is pretty shocking and completely indefensible.
......................
Chevy should have replaced the vehicle, or repaired it on their dime.
Was it?
Once the cause of the fire is determined then we can argue if GM should pay for it.
However, loss of use falls onto you and your insurance.

So I will say it again.
What if it was not (cause of the fire being battery fault)?
Maybe Scott started the fire... and now he is hoping to get the money from GM.
 
61 - 80 of 137 Posts
Top