• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    GM's Bankruptcy Terms Could Reduce Liabilities Over Ignition Switch Lawsuits


    • Another Twist In The GM Ignition Switch Recall Saga

    Another twist in the General Motors' ignition switch recall story. Automotive News reports that the company may have a possible legal shield from lawsuits stemming from the recall. During the restructuring process, GM negotiated with state attorney generals and consumer groups to carry product liability on vehicle faults after it left bankruptcy in 2009. Those faults prior to 2009 would need to take it up with old GM. So far, any lawsuits brought against the company for pre-2009 faults have gone nowhere.

    "It is true that new GM did not assume liability for claims arising from incidents or accidents occurring prior to July 2009.Our principle throughout this process has been to the put the customer first, and that will continue to guide us," said GM spokesman Greg Martin in a email.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    While I can respect the things GM is saying right now, had they put the customer first all along they would not be in this mess. It really is that simple.

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    While I can respect the things GM is saying right now, had they put the customer first all along they would not be in this mess. It really is that simple.

    I have to actually fully disagree with you on your statement. It is NEVER that Simple.

    You can have the Customer first all along and until you build it and go through a extensive QA process, you can miss simple things and then due to Government regulations have to go back and re-engineer something that can actually make a product a money losing item.

    Yes, there is plenty of History to support the Bean counters and Lawyers and Executives protecting their HUGE bonuses and paychecks when if they had properly served the customer with a quality item to begin with the mess would not have happened. Yet there are also plenty of times that small items just might be ok to let it go and correct it in the next round of product building.

    In this case, GM should have started the product but then immediately made changes to the item in question here to address this and changed it out mid way through the first year.

    In this case the old guard of the old GM failed in their job for what they were paid for out of pure greed.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What the other side of the story people are missing is that NHSTA had known about this issue but put it under the rug. As much as GM is to blame, the government agency is on the same pedestal.

    What is now going on is damage prevention act and political dog and pony show with Congressional hearing. GM is going to be a loser here unfortunately.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    While I can respect the things GM is saying right now, had they put the customer first all along they would not be in this mess. It really is that simple.

    I have to actually fully disagree with you on your statement. It is NEVER that Simple.

    You can have the Customer first all along and until you build it and go through a extensive QA process, you can miss simple things and then due to Government regulations have to go back and re-engineer something that can actually make a product a money losing item.

    Yes, there is plenty of History to support the Bean counters and Lawyers and Executives protecting their HUGE bonuses and paychecks when if they had properly served the customer with a quality item to begin with the mess would not have happened. Yet there are also plenty of times that small items just might be ok to let it go and correct it in the next round of product building.

    In this case, GM should have started the product but then immediately made changes to the item in question here to address this and changed it out mid way through the first year.

    In this case the old guard of the old GM failed in their job for what they were paid for out of pure greed.

    I'm not saying I don't see how this made it into production. Trust me, I know that can happen. You are very correct if you were saying that design and development is not that simple. Every automaker has many, many tests they run their vehicles through as part of development and many, many more they run individual components through. What people often don't realize is that those tests are constantly evolving based on lessons learned from new designs. I can guarantee you GM learned their lesson on this issue a long time ago and have been testing all new ignition switches for this issue for a while.

    My post was in reference to the fact that they new they had a problem along time ago, at least outwardly appeared to know it could be a serious problem (hell, they were buying vehicles back), had a redesign in place to address the issue and then killed it for some unknown reason.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2QuickZ's

    "had a redesign in place to address the issue and then killed it for some unknown reason."

    I would totally agree with your statement, I wonder also. Who got paid off to ignor this.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2QuickZ's

    "had a redesign in place to address the issue and then killed it for some unknown reason."

    Probably some beancounter did the math and determined it was cheaper to do nothing than do a redesign. Also in big companies it's often better for one's career to say nothing, do nothing in a situation like this than rock the boat. Lots of CYA at work in these old style companies...

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'll bet 99% of the OLD GMC is now the NEW GMC - Same thing, they just changed the wording in their last name. Extremely disappointed in this latest fiasco.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The best current GM can hope for is to blame it on Old GM and then fix the problem free of charge to anyone who wants the fix.

    Going to have to be a bit more than that....they need as much goodwill as possible.

    A couple local dealerships are offering "extra trade in money" on GM products....so they can be rid of their "junker" I fully expect other automakers to try to jump on this......

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online