PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama's GM says it is not responsible for Pre-Obama GM Warranty.


HonestChieffan
08-28-2011, 05:10 PM
New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM. Super duper!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/gm-impala-lawsuit-idUSN1E77I0Z820110819

Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]

Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.

But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

David Fink, Trusky's lawyer, declined to comment.

John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of "successor liability" is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.

"The fact it comes up now is not a surprise, as this type of issue was widely discussed during GM's bankruptcy," said Penn, now a partner at Haynes and Boone in Fort Worth, Texas. "The court will need to evaluate the claims to see if they fit within any cubbyhole of liability that New GM assumed."

GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.

"There are no specific factual allegations that New GM -- as opposed to Old GM -- did anything at all in relation to her vehicle," Jeffers wrote. "Plaintiff here is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."

In late afternoon trading, GM shares were down $1.62 at $21.98 on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case is Trusky v. General Motors Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 11-12815. (Editing by Robert MacMillan)

Guru
08-28-2011, 05:26 PM
nice little fuck you to the consumer.

DanT
08-28-2011, 05:33 PM
The title of this thread says that GM will not honor its warranty, which seems to be in direct contradiction to the content of the news story in the topic heading post, which states GM position that it will indeed honor the terms in express written warranties. I suppose that the title of the tread could be construed as pertinent to the news story if one accepts that GM has some responsibility to interpret warranties in whatever way the lawyers bringing the lawsuit would like them to be interpreted.

The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

Brock
08-28-2011, 05:34 PM
Buy 'merican!

evenfall
08-28-2011, 06:26 PM
She shoulda bought the Camry...

(Goodyear stimulus package?)

whoman69
08-28-2011, 06:42 PM
Doesn't it always work this way after a bankruptcy, whether its connected to the government or no? Are you setting a higher standard?

Amnorix
08-29-2011, 05:51 AM
Thread OP fail.

RedNeckRaider
08-29-2011, 06:21 AM
This was clearly stated at the time of the bailout. That was one of the hot button topics by people against the bailout~

Amnorix
08-29-2011, 06:36 AM
Bottom line is very simple -- for GM to come out of bankruptcy in strong shape, it needed to shed its serious liabilities and come out of the process as clean as possible. The problems, or at least most of them, got left with "Old GM" and "New GM" came out pretty clean.

And this is not exactly completely unusual. Part of the reason the bankruptcy code exists is to allow companies to reorganize in bankruptcy and came out of the process absolved of many of its old liabilities.

Garcia Bronco
08-29-2011, 07:23 AM
Bullshit lawyering. The company is GM. The company was bailed out illegally with TARP funds, and now they pull this shit. Stop buying their crap and kill this company.

HonestChieffan
08-29-2011, 07:25 AM
Taxpayers who bought the car to begin with and paid for the bailout get handed a steaming pile......I suppose its just one more steamer from the White House.