Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    300 Claims Have Been Filed To GM's Ignition Switch Compensation Fund

      How many people have filed a claim for GM's compensation fund?

    It has been almost two months since General Motors announced a compensation fund for families who either lost a loved one or who were injured because of a problem due to the ignition switch. According to the Detroit Free Press, almost 300 people have filed a claim.

    100 people who have filed a claim said their loved ones were killed because of defect, while 184 people said their injuries come as a result of the problem. These numbers come from Amy Weiss, a spokeswoman for fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg.

    The Detroit Free Press says each person who has filed a claim has to provide evidence that it was the defective switch that was the cause of the injury/fatality. If the person is able to prove this, Feinberg will will use actuarial tables and medical cost data to determine individual payouts.

    Source: Detroit Free Press

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Glad to see this and that GM is dealing with it in an open transparent way. I am also happy to see just how low this number is considering people I know that said it would be in the thousands or 10's of thousands. This is much lower.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Reporting the numbers is a good step, though I'm somewhat skeptical that all 100 of those fatality claims will hold up.  Seems like the government would've stepped in way sooner had 100 people been killed riding in a handful of GM models for this problem.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I reckon there will be, issues with the claims as some may be trying to make money easy trying to claim a family member died and blaming switch when it may not have been the problem in the first place. It will take time to process the claims, and will have to be looked at and reviewed and the company would see if it is true and if it is will payout depends on how much there is to pay the families compensation. The number is small, so it shows that only these have claimed at the moment there could be more numbers that have not been put in or accounted for at the time of the article was wrote so there could be more than these figures.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    While painful to report GM has to do so and not be seen as hiding them. If they do not report them someone else will and point out GM's failure.

     

    The issue is with most of these claims there were so many extenuating circumstances that while GM may have played a part in this with a failed Airbag deploying the driver also often at fault or responsible for moving this from a injury to a death.

     

    I had done the home work on the original cases and things that were left out of the news often were of the first 12 deaths 7 had no seat belt on. 3 were drunk well over the limit one was twice the limit. One was impaired by drugs. One had a epileptic Seizer that lead to the accident. Speed often was involved including one case that also included drunk and no belt at 60 MPH plus into a 25 MPH  cul-de-sac. 

     

    I am sure there are some legitimate claims and GM should share responsibility where they were at fault. But also I do not think people should be paid for a death that could have been survived if the driver was belted in and not speeding as they flew off the road drunk and unbelted.

     

    One driver was well over 70 MPH and drunk and it a tree. He hit so hard his legs had to be removed as they were impaled trough the floor. Do you think a working air bag here would have saved him?

     

    At this point GM is just going to pay out and settle with the families. In the end the only ones who will come out a winner here is the lawyers.

     

    Now keep in mind that GM is looking at cases that to be honest may not be fully their fault so you can only figure what the other cases are like that get declined. I am sure there are many bogus claims that people are trying to just get a settlement.

     

    I do not expect GM to be absolved of this but I wish the media would portray this issue as it really is. So much of one side was reported and not given full disclosure. The reality is if a car stalls it is not instant death. You restart the car and keep going. Many people do this as they keep cars in such poor operating condition they do not run cold.

     

    The media failed to report the steering dose not lock as so many people think. They failed to report that the brakes keep vacuum and still have enough to give you a save power brake stop with the engine off. They failed to report you can put the car in neutral and restart it. They failed to report the conditions that the drivers provided that hindered their survival.

     

    All I would like to see is the truth on both sides reported not just ones side.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm glad GM is doing this but I have to agree with the person above me.  In the end, the lawyers will be the ones coming out on top.  There have been a few cases with the power steering loss, the ignition loss, air bag failures where people haven't been drunk, weren't speeding excessively etc, where this fund will come in handy.  Hopefully the families that have lost loved ones, or people who have been severely injured will be compensated.  I am just glad GM is doing what they can here.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Certain Tesla fans: "Elon Musk will be able name his charging price and their superchargers will be everywhere."   Also Elon Musk: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/musk-disbands-tesla-ev-charging-202301433.html
    • That seems to be the idea that Ford and GM have out here. Plus for most it’s a good try before you buy. I feel that would be the route that I would go too…..
    • I was in a situation where I had rented a car – a category with a trunk – and there weren’t any available.  Their running out of certain categories happens frequently nowadays.  As such, I was assigned a 2023 Chevrolet Trailblazer. This didn’t look like any of the Trailblazers I remember.  For one, it was a lot smaller.  It was also badged as AWD.  I assumed there would be a Chevy 1.5L T I-4 under the hood.  Previous Trailblazers of the New Millennium ran with a 4.1 L I-6, possibly the modernized, aluminized version of the same 250 c.i. I-6 of the last century.  A friend bought one of these in the early 2000’s.  I was once given one by a rental agency and its 4.1L I-6 was incredibly smooth, but given how quickly the fuel gauge headed west, I took it back for an exchange within a day. Before even settling into the car, I looked under the hood to find a 1.3L T 3-cylinder engine.  Three-cylinder engines have become a lot more prevalent in Europe, even in small SUV-CUV types but typically in econoboxes.  As for initial impressions, it looked like the car would be sensible to drive and operate its functions.  This tuned out to be true.  The seats are supportive and comfortable enough, together with some attractive stitching, The materials are not high grade, with the same tougher fabric which might be in the Malibu.  In fact, except for some minor differences, transitioning from a Malibu to a Trailblazer is easy.  The width of the cabin, the gauges and switches, and the urethane steering wheel and its controls are similar.  In fact, in the Trailblazer, some things are better.  The touch screen is engaged in the dash, with the center vents above it, providing for excellent dispersion of what the air conditioner was dishing out - which was very cool.  Further down, the cubby for electronic devices is flatter and larger and the outlets and switches are all linearly arranged next to each other for easy use.  Also, with the inherently higher seating position, the view is better and the shifter and console height are in a more user-friendly position. The exterior sheet metal shows good taste, and the character lines are nicely done.  The front fascia with its lighting set-up is its strong point.  Even the rear taillamps look good as they wrap the rear corners. Returning to mechanical specifications, the transmission was a geared one.  The interwebs and its owner manual revealed this.  If a new Trailblazer is AWD, the transmission is a 9-speed automatic.  If it’s a 2WD, the transmission is a CVT.    This is a very utilitarian and practical package, and it couldn’t be described as refined.  However, the engine is not grainy but its rhythmic but not hushed hum is always present.  When pushed, it just hums more audibly.  The engine does what it’s supposed to do.  With around 140 horsepower, this is not a powerplant with which to riskily pass, sprint up long grades, and think it’s a jackrabbit, despite its having a turbocharger. The transmission is a “humorous” one.  I can’t think of another word.  There’s the expression “children should be seen and not heard.”  In this Trailblazer, it’s more like “children are heard but not seen.”  As the gearbox marches through its 9 gears, the spool-ups are quick and you hear them, but the unit slushes into the next gear as if it was a CVT and you don’t even feel the shifts.  However, if throttled, you will definitely feel the shifts and, in stop and go driving at lower speeds, it can hunt within the first 3 gears and do it in a jerky way.  However, in composed linear driving, the shifts are seamless but the short intervals for each gear, complete with the “sound effects,” was humorous … at least to me. The Trailblazer is a nimble enough vehicle.  It rides fairly smoothly, but can quickly become unsettled.  Its ride quality is not as budget-like as that of the now gone Chevy Spark and Sonic, but not as pleasant as that in the Malibu or even what they were able to accomplish in the final-gen Cruze.  Wind noise is reasonably controlled, but tire and suspension related noises aren’t as effectively soaked up.  The road surface is always being communicated to the cabin, telling you this is not a premium vehicle.  In the CUV-SUV category, I’ve only driven the much larger Chevy Traverse with a 3.6 VVT V6 … and we’re talking two different worlds. With the higher seating position, front and side visibility are good.  The thick rear sail panel makes angled rear visibility challenging.  This seems to be the norm in this typology of vehicles.  This unit did not have parking or side traffic sensors, which are much needed, and a few lane changes were more challenging since I like to mix up looking over my shoulder and using the mirrors.  With the rear seat up, storage space is good … thanks to the Trailblazer’s the boxy shape, and it’s very good with the split rear seat folded forward into the cabin.  It would come in handy to move boxes or a bundle of items.  There was a slot for a rear cover over the storage area, but it was missing.  This is one of the reasons I try to avoid this typology at the rental counter.  The windows are more tinted toward the rear, but I was still not comfortable with that.  The rental agency said ‘but we sell insurance for your personal effects.’  I doubt someone has the time to replace apparel and items that have been purchased over a span of agent while traveling.  Rental agencies don’t do a good job of monitoring this item.  I’m sure that a private owner would keep the retractable cover in its place as needed. Inside, while the controls are logically placed, there is no remote hatch or fuel filler release.  However, if the vehicle is locked, the fuel door cannot be opened.  Fuel consumption can vary a lot and the instant fuel mileage readout will clue in the driver to that.  I set the drivetrain to 2WD and “eco” mode, but it still has to lug around AWD hardware.  The readout goes from unimpressive city driving fuel efficiency to very plausible mileage at steady highway cruise.  The 9-speed automatic allows the Trailblazer with AWD to cruise at 65 mph at about 1,900 rpms.  That’s why it can attain the higher fuel mileage, but it took going to 3 cylinders to attain that. It was very easy to transition to the Trailblazer from several other Chevrolet models, and especially the Malibu.  Thinking of the similarities and differences, the Trailblazer could almost be viewed as a higher sitting and less refined riding 3-cylinder Malibu turned CUV-SUV.  For a consumer at the intersection of needing the packaging this vehicle provides and its price point, the Trailblazer could make sense. - - - - - PHOTOS FORTHCOMING
    • Name: DFELT First EV - 2024 Kia EV9 Category: Vehicles Date Added: 2024-04-29 Submitter: David   DFELT First EV - 2024 Kia EV9  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings