Corvette on Fire: Family wins Lawsuit Against GM
04-09-2012, 02:25 PM
#1
Corvette on Fire: Family wins Lawsuit Against GM
Read it here: Corvette on Fire: Family wins Lawsuit Against GM
They lost two Corvettes and a house! GM's going to appeal the decision, but currently they're on the hook for a couple million dollars. Ouch.
They lost two Corvettes and a house! GM's going to appeal the decision, but currently they're on the hook for a couple million dollars. Ouch.
04-09-2012, 02:47 PM
#5
Team Owner
This will drag on for a long time before any money is actually handed over.
04-09-2012, 02:47 PM
#6
04-09-2012, 03:25 PM
#9
Le Mans Master
This used to occur on a regular basis with the C4. Combination of things. Basically 20+ year old gas lines that were not designed to have Al-Gore-ahole mixed into the gasoline and dissolving them from the inside out with no apparent forewarning. And a lot of folks that never bother to check their fuel lines and when they would leak the C4 would go up in flames. If you were lucky it was on the road, and not in the garage. But quite a few C4 owners were not so lucky.
04-09-2012, 03:25 PM
#10
Racer
Member Since: Nov 2008
Location: Sterling Heights Michigan
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two sides to every story
Article seems to only have one side to the story. Owners claim defective telescoping steering caused the fire.
"When the car melted down, the gas rolled out of the garage and caught the outside of the home on fire; that was the first clue that it was the car, he said."
What, the gas leaked out of the garage and caught the home on fire????? If the car was on fire then the gas would not leak outside, it would catch on fire quickly. Sounds like quite a stretch. About as far fetched as saying all the hardwired smoke alarms didn't work. First thing I thought was the GM lawyers would argue that the owners were underwater on a big, expensive home and burned it to the ground to collect the insurance.
I don't know the owners and would never accuse them of anything based on the limited facts presented. I feel sorry for their loss and thank god no one was hurt. However, when talking millions of dollars it usally ends up that the insurance company is looking to sue someone for the payout they would have to make. You have to take everything you read with a grain of salt, especially if only one side is talking.
"When the car melted down, the gas rolled out of the garage and caught the outside of the home on fire; that was the first clue that it was the car, he said."
What, the gas leaked out of the garage and caught the home on fire????? If the car was on fire then the gas would not leak outside, it would catch on fire quickly. Sounds like quite a stretch. About as far fetched as saying all the hardwired smoke alarms didn't work. First thing I thought was the GM lawyers would argue that the owners were underwater on a big, expensive home and burned it to the ground to collect the insurance.
I don't know the owners and would never accuse them of anything based on the limited facts presented. I feel sorry for their loss and thank god no one was hurt. However, when talking millions of dollars it usally ends up that the insurance company is looking to sue someone for the payout they would have to make. You have to take everything you read with a grain of salt, especially if only one side is talking.
04-09-2012, 03:53 PM
#11
Safety Car
Member Since: Dec 2011
Location: New Rochelle N.Y. 2013 Grand Sport
Posts: 3,608
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
11 Posts
just glad no one was hurt but the whole story as explained by the husband sounds pretty fishy to me. if that was their defense its a wonder how they won
04-09-2012, 05:35 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
What I'm always puzzled about in these cases is they're tried in front of a jury unless they're settled first. I'd like to think that a jury can smell BS as well as any other 12 people.
Bummer
04-09-2012, 06:13 PM
#17
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Mar 2010
Location: Warwick NY
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then the negligence would be on GM? Like said there is something not quite right. If the fire was that intense to melt the gas tank then it runing out of the garage wouldn't make a bit of a difference on the fire. Anyway all that proves the fire started in the garage.
04-09-2012, 07:59 PM
#20
Melting Slicks
If I remember correctly if this was first paid by an insurance company the subrogation claim is brought in the name of the insured by the insurance company. Afterall the insurance company is now out what there payout was. The insurance company will go after the responsible parties but in the name of the insured. I dont believe the name of the insurance company or the word insurance can be brought up in the court proceedings. Of course the insurance company hires the attorneys and pays all costs of the recovery effort... Many many companies are members of Arbitration and if both sides are signatories to Arbitration the proceeding is settled by Arbitration. In this case I doubt that GM was a member of Arbitration.
