# My M5 used as customer shuttle



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

It is in the dealer *and* in the customer's best interests to not allow any employee of the dealer to be using customers cars without supervision and outside the intended purpose of the car to be there to begin with.

This so called customer's "permission" that you are talking about has explicit and implicit limits and liabilities that the dealer cannot just ignore. I do not think that they can fake being angry after finding out such a break in their procedures.

Just imagine the kind of deep hole that they would be if there has been an accident involving other customers while an "unauthorized" dealer employee was using another customer car as a shuttle while being there only for service. This was no joy ride, this was intentional and business as usual for some particular individual at that dealer at least.

The bottom line is that somebody at the dealership really messed up. And just from the dealer perspective it is bad business.



ard said:


> 1. Not surprising at all
> 
> 2. Dealer employees, managers, can take cars out for lunch, whatever. Legally youve given them permission.
> 
> ...


----------



## Campfamily (Sep 20, 2010)

mikeriley said:


> He told me that they need to keep the car for another day to drive it to make sure the software update worked and that no faults are recorded.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Although I'd be pretty upset if my car was being used as a shuttle car, I'm going to suggest a different scenario......they told you they needed to take the car on a test drive, and you gave them permission. Could be there was a backup waiting for the shuttle, and one of their regular customers had been waiting for a while, so whoever was test driving the car was asked to combine the test drive with picking up this regular customer. Somebody at the dealership figured, why not......take care of the test drive, plus take care of a good customer. Win/Win, right?
> ...


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

Campfamily said:


> mikeriley said:
> 
> 
> > He told me that they need to keep the car for another day to drive it to make sure the software update worked and that no faults are recorded.
> ...


----------



## 335Fanatic (Aug 6, 2009)

Please post the dealership's name here for everyone's benefit.


----------



## BavarianDoc (Apr 23, 2003)

mikeriley - I am sorry to hear about this. it is something that has happened, cannot be changed however you can do something to makeup for your frustration, stress, time, etc and make sure that dealer knows what it will cost them for next customer they try to do this to. 

hit them where it hurts the most -- wallet.

car detail, gas, etc is pocket change. I would be VERY FIRM for 1 month payment -- non negotiable, and give them 24 hrs to make it happen. I approximate your monthly pmt is upward of $1k which should be reasonable punishment for dealer. after all they have repeatedly lied to you, making you look paranoid and they simply got to pay up for that.

if you get them lose off the hook with car detail, they will not see such a big deal and easily can happen to next customer. 

these days you have so many ways to make your story heard which would not work in favor of dealer or BMW USA -- forums, BBB, social media, letters, emails to higher ups in BMW USA, etc. 

Trust me, it can easily be done if you get the message to right guy. my car stayed in service dept for almost a month but when I firmed up on them, check for monthly pmt was made same day.

good luck!


----------



## BavarianDoc (Apr 23, 2003)

I would give it 24 hrs and chance to dealer to make things right.

publishing now will only complicate things and work against if they see dirt on them has already been exposed



335Fanatic said:


> Please post the dealership's name here for everyone's benefit.


----------



## Campfamily (Sep 20, 2010)

DDGator said:


> Campfamily said:
> 
> 
> > No -- because in most states if that passenger is injured in an accident, the owner of the vehicle is legally on the hook. That could happen on a "test drive" too -- but you are greatly increasing the potential liability by adding another person or more to the mix.
> ...


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

With the caveat that I am not giving you legal advice... My opinion is yes. At least in Florida, a car is a "dangerous instrumentality." Below is a summary of Florida law on this issue I found on the web. I imagine that the law in other states may be similar.

Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine is a common law doctrine which provides that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries caused by that tool's operation. The Florida Supreme Court in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 469 (Fla. 1920), extended the doctrine to motor vehicles, holding that owners may be held accountable for any damages suffered by third parties as the result of the negligent operation of their vehicles, when they are driven by others with their knowledge and consent. This doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another. Therefore whoever authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by an individual on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by any person so authorized by the owner of the instrumentality.

In the scenario you proposed, I think you are definitely on the hook.

In the OP's scenario, depending on what he signed, there may be an argument that driving the customer was outside the scope of the authorized use of the vehicle, and thus the vicarious liability would not apply.

However, I am saying the whole situation is not without risk.


----------



## Mykatie (Aug 8, 2012)

If that car was in an accident and someone was hurt or killed, the lawyers would sue everybody, owner included. Would they win? how much money do you have to mount a defense?


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

mikeriley said:


> I was then directed to the service manager who appalled. He was very sincere in his disgust and apologized. He offered to detail my car.


I won't speculate beyond your own first impression. I would be more likely to believe this is correct, accept his apology and his offer to detail the car.



Ninong said:


> I understand your anger over something like this; however I would accept the offer to have them detail the car. It's more likely than not that this was done by a low level employee without the knowledge of the service advisor or the service manager.


I repeat the suggestion I posted previously in this thread because this is the most likely explanation. If it turns out that they do that often with customers' cars at that dealership, then that's an entirely different matter.

In any case, it should never have happened, you have every right to be upset, but it's probably not something the service manager condones.



Technic said:


> It is in the dealer *and* in the customer's best interests to not allow any employee of the dealer to be using customers cars without supervision and outside the intended purpose of the car to be there to begin with.
> 
> This so called customer's "permission" that you are talking about has explicit and implicit limits and liabilities that the dealer cannot just ignore.
> 
> The bottom line is that somebody at the dealership really messed up. And just from the dealer perspective it is bad business.


Yes, it is such incredibly bad business that it is not allowed by their insurance policy. Therefore, I seriously doubt that this is routine business as usual at this dealership.


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

Mykatie said:


> If that car was in an accident and someone was hurt or killed, the lawyers would sue everybody, owner included. Would they win? how much money do you have to mount a defense?


The good news is that your insurance company would have the obligation to provide a defense, and they would argue any ways around the dangerous instrumentality doctrine to get them (and you) off the hook.

However, there is certainly a risk of taking a judgment in excess of the policy limits, and that excess becomes a personal liability to you.

I think we all agree -- much better to not be put in that situation at all. The dealership is playing fast and loose with your personal wealth and finances when they start driving people around in your car.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

Mykatie said:


> Would they win? how much money do you have to mount a defense?


His insurance company is responsible for his defense.


----------



## Mykatie (Aug 8, 2012)

Ninong said:


> His insurance company is responsible for his defense.


Anyone remember the jerky boys? "sue everybody!"


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

Mykatie said:


> Anyone remember the jerky boys? "sue everybody!"


I'm not saying he won't be sued, I'm saying that if he is sued, his car insurance company has a legal obligation to take over his defense.


----------



## tturedraider (Nov 11, 2005)

tturedraider said:


> Wow!!! OK, I'm usually reluctant to jump to extremes, but I think in this case it would be fair that they cover one monthly payment and *fire* the person responsible for making the decision to use your car that way. This is off the charts unacceptable.


I'm gonna repeat my suggestions. In my view this is a big deal, because we're talking about a virtually new ///M5. If your car was a 320i it would be a slightly less big deal, but the fact is if it was a 320i whomever made this choice wouldn't have made the same choice. Whomever made the choice did so SPECIFICALLY because the car was an ///M car. You paid A LOT of money for one of the most premium vehicles BMW produces and a very strong message needs to be sent that this kind of behavior and disrespect for a customer's property will not be tolerated and has severe consequences.


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

tturedraider said:


> You paid A LOT of money for one of the most premium vehicles BMW produces and a very strong message needs to be sent that this kind of behavior and disrespect for a customer's property will not be tolerated and has severe consequences.


I'm not generally one to jump to extremes either... And I often find people to think they are entitled to unreasonable compensation...

This situation, however, is pretty egregious.

I have another possible request. Ask them to send you to an M-School. The tuition is $2-3k but I am sure they get it cheaper and/or get occasional promotional spots. This way you get a nice value, and an experience commensurate with your loss--but they can justify it easier than paying you cash.


----------



## Campfamily (Sep 20, 2010)

DDGator said:


> With the caveat that I am not giving you legal advice... My opinion is yes. At least in Florida, a car is a "dangerous instrumentality." Below is a summary of Florida law on this issue I found on the web. I imagine that the law in other states may be similar.
> 
> Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine is a common law doctrine which provides that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries caused by that tool's operation. The Florida Supreme Court in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 469 (Fla. 1920), extended the doctrine to motor vehicles, holding that owners may be held accountable for any damages suffered by third parties as the result of the negligent operation of their vehicles, when they are driven by others with their knowledge and consent. This doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another. Therefore whoever authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by an individual on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by any person so authorized by the owner of the instrumentality.
> 
> ...


Wow!!! Learn something new every day!!

So, from now on, HELL NO YOU CAN'T BORROW MY CAR!!! :rofl:

Keith


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

Campfamily said:


> Wow!!! Learn something new every day!!
> 
> So, from now on, HELL NO YOU CAN'T BORROW MY CAR!!! :rofl:
> 
> Keith


This is an excellent course of action. I don't let anyone drive my cars unless it is an absolute emergency.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

Campfamily said:


> Wow!!! Learn something new every day!!
> 
> So, from now on, HELL NO YOU CAN'T BORROW MY CAR!!! :rofl:
> 
> Keith


You will definitely get sued as the owner of the car when you entrust your car to another driver. You know how lawyers are, they name everybody possible in the lawsuit. And if you're the one with the deeper pockets, look out. 

That's why it's so important that if you ever act as the co-signer on an auto loan, or personal guarantor on an auto lease, that your name not appear on the registration as co-owner, co-lessee on a lease. If your name appears on the title, you are more than just the co-signer, you are the co-owner, or co-lessee on a lease. You will be named in any lawsuit for damages due to an accident involving that car.

It goes without saying that if you are foolish enough to entrust you car to an unlicensed driver, you are guilty of negligence and in deep doo-doo in the event of an accident. The same goes for entrusting your car to someone who has been drinking.

The courts in California have awarded damages to the injured parties in cases where the parents served as little as two glasses of wine to their adult son during dinner at their home followed by an accident involving his own car on the way home. The parents' names were not on the title and they were not even co-signers on the loan. All they did was serve him alcohol at their home just prior to his departure. The parents had the deeper pockets. It goes without saying that if you allow alcohol to be consumed by minors on your premises and one of those minors is involved in an accident after leaving your home, you will definitely be named in the lawsuit.

In another case that I remember, the courts awarded damages against the father who merely co-signed the loan for his adult son, who was involved in a serious accident causing death of the other driver. Usually such a case is futile as long as the father's name is not on the title as a co-owner but in that case the facts were that the son was 29 years old, he had a years-long record of known irresponsible behavior, including drug and alcohol abuse, and he was under the influence at the time of the accident. The court found that the father knew of his son's behavior and was therefore responsible for enabling him by co-signing the loan. That's a stretch but it can happen.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

well after all the chest beating about how an M5 is a big deal, top of the food chain, etc, etc..and how 'absolutely outraged' the dealer will "really" be, lets see what they offer.

My guess is a pittance.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

ard said:


> well after all the chest beating about how an M5 is a big deal, top of the food chain, etc, etc..and how 'absolutely outraged' the dealer will "really" be, lets see what they offer.
> 
> My guess is a pittance.


The dealership already made their offer.

"I was then directed to the service manager who was appalled. He was very sincere in his disgust and apologized. He offered to detail my car."

Unless there is new information that has not yet been added to this thread, it seems like an appropriate offer to me. Now it's up to the OP to decide if he considers it an appropriate offer.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

Ninong said:


> The dealership already made their offer.
> 
> "I was then directed to the service manager who was appalled. He was very sincere in his disgust and apologized. He offered to detail my car."
> 
> Unless there is new information that has not yet been added to this thread, it seems like an appropriate offer to me. Now it's up to the OP to decide if he considers it an appropriate offer.


haha

I missed that in all the "they owe you M school" nonsense.

I would never, ever, ever allow a BMW dealer to "detail" my car. I mean they just wash it, vacuum it, spray crap on the trim and slimy quik wax on the paint...it is detailing for the masses.

Along with the note I made above ("Do Not Drive") they get a "Do Not Wash- DO Not Detail" in 72pt font on the dash and under the wiper blade.

At the end of the day, the dealer did NOT wreck the car, paralyze any kids, etc. Some miles on the car. They feel an apolgy, some noise about "we wont tolerate this kind of employee misconduct" and 'we will clean the car since we used it'. I am sure they feel that is all they need to do.

Say...how about "I want the DME dumped and I want to see if there are any over-revs logged in the DME by the driver during the time he had the car. Furthermore I want to be there when this is downloaded"

THAT would be appropriate.

Dealers (ie 'poorly supervised and trained dealership employees) can absoluety HAMMER an M5. Some models more than others. I dont care if they drove another customer home. I DO care if they abused the car.


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

ard said:


> haha
> 
> I missed that in all the "they owe you M school" nonsense.


If you are talking about me, that is not what I said. I suggested the OP might ask them to send him to an M-School as a good will gesture, and that would be more likely to happen than giving him $1,000 cash for his monthly payment.

I guess we all have varying levels of outrage over this -- your opinion is correct, and mine is non-sense.  Thanks for straightening me out.


----------



## need4speed (May 26, 2006)

ard said:


> 1. Not surprising at all
> 
> 2. *Dealer employees, managers, can take cars out for lunch*, whatever. Legally youve given them permission.
> 
> ...


It happens. At least once when they came out of the restaurant the car was gone. Owner had keys. saw it and drove off with their own car. The employees had to find a way back to work and explain how they lost the car. N4S


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

I'm taking my car in for service tomorrow. 

I'll see exactly the breadth of consent that I am giving for the dealership to take my car to lunch, pick-up the kids from school, and deliver pizzas on a part-time job...


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

DDGator said:


> I'm taking my car in for service tomorrow.
> 
> I'll see exactly the breadth of consent that I am giving for the dealership to take my car to lunch, pick-up the kids from school, and deliver pizzas on a part-time job...


No, you don't authorize them to "take your car to lunch, pick-up the kids from school or deliver pizzas."

You do authorize them to operate your car for the purposes of inspection, diagnosis and repair to the extent shown on the work order you signed. If, for example, your complaint is that your new M5 does such-and-such when you drive it to work in the morning but then the problem disappears on its own within the first few miles of driving, they may find that they can't find the problem you're telling them about. In a situation like that, the technician may tell the service advisor that it's probably going to be necessary for him to drive the car home overnight so that he can cold start it in the morning and drive it back to the dealership to see if he can find the same problem. In that sort of situation, the dealership would call you and ask for your permission first before doing that. And even if they take it home, that doesn't authorize them to take the family out on the town that night in your car.

Actually, even in a situation involving a problem that manifests itself only following an early morning cold start and commute traffic, it's usually possible to simply park the car in the service lot overnight and then the technician will drive it first thing in the morning. So it's rare that they would ask for permission to drive it home overnight. That's usually something that happens at the suggestion of the customer to the service manager after the problem still hasn't been fixed and the customer is frustrated. He'll show up in the service manager's office and tell him, "Okay, you drive it home tonight and you'll see what I'm talking about when you drive it to work tomorrow morning."

You don't give the dealership carte blanche to use your car to run personal errands, including driving through the drive-in line at the local McDonald's to show off to the sweet young ladies there that you would like to impress. You don't even give the technician performing the work on your car permission to drive it in any manner or in any place unrelated to the work he is actually assigned to perform.

Some people link to incidents where a BMW employee crashed a customer's car as proof that anybody at the dealership can use your car while it's in their possession but that's not true. In the notorious case of the customer whose 650i convertible was wrecked on the interstate by a BMW employee, the facts were that the driver of the car was a 28-yr-old BMW technician who was assigned to work on the car. I don't know if he was authorized to be driving it where it was wrecked or not but at least he was one of their techs. I believe his explanation was that he wanted to warm up the engine oil. They fired him immediately after the customer discovered the truth of what happened. The dealership tried to lie their way out of it originally by saying the BMW had been T-boned by another car that ran a redlight. That was a total fabrication. But that doesn't prove that you authorize anybody and everybody to drive your car while it's in the custody of the dealer's service department because you don't.

If one of the dealership's service department employees drives your car to pick up a customer to bring them back to the dealership to pick up their car, that's absolutely not something you authorized and you would have every right to complain about it and be very, very pissed. I know I would be. However, I would be much more understanding if it turned out that the low level employee who drove the car did it without authorization. If it turned out that someone told him to take my M5 to pick up a customer, I would go through the roof. That's up to the customer to decide. Does he believe the service manager who "was appalled" or does he think it's something they do on a regular basis at that dealership?


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

Agree with everything Ninong said.

I will only add that I also see two different issues here. Even IF the customer had given broad legal consent to any and all operation of the vehicle, that doesn't make it an acceptable business practice. Law and ethics are two different things.

At a minimum, this dealership (or maybe a rogue employee...to be generous) committed a significant ethical violation in using a customer's car in this fashion.


----------



## Mykatie (Aug 8, 2012)

Somebody has some explaining to do.


----------



## marsb007 (Nov 22, 2012)

DDGator said:


> With the caveat that I am not giving you legal advice... My opinion is yes. At least in Florida, a car is a "dangerous instrumentality." Below is a summary of Florida law on this issue I found on the web. I imagine that the law in other states may be similar.
> 
> Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine is a common law doctrine which provides that the owner of an inherently dangerous tool is liable for any injuries caused by that tool's operation. The Florida Supreme Court in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 469 (Fla. 1920), extended the doctrine to motor vehicles, holding that owners may be held accountable for any damages suffered by third parties as the result of the negligent operation of their vehicles, when they are driven by others with their knowledge and consent. This doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another. Therefore whoever authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by an individual on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by any person so authorized by the owner of the instrumentality.
> 
> ...


Florida's dangerous instrumentality law does not apply to shops/mechanics. There is a specific exclusion, which you wouldn't know if you didn't do this type of law.

The shop's GL policy would cover it, and they would be forced to indemnify, hold harmless and defend, if they didn't want to have a third party suit against them too.

It's still completely ****ty to be placed in such a situation, and I'd be pretty pissed. 
My dealer did something similar... Even changed my presets (obviously they thought I'd appreciate listening to reggaeton), along with the faint smell of fast food and the fries I found (I have a strict no eating in my car policy unless you want my foot up your ass).

Bottom line, I declined their "detail", although I got super excited at the thought of the dealer putting all those swirl marks in my paint...

Unfortunately, the only way to prevent it is to not give them the opportunity, or to make it look like you have cameras in the car (or actually have cameras). Even then, they might look you in the eye and lie to you, expose you to the same issues as before, and offer you the complimentary detail...

Bad apples are everywhere...

Ps. http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/floridas-dangerous-instrumentality-doctrine-25-1.pdf

See footnote 44. There is your answer. Just don't tell them to pick up your car from work or drop it off to you. If you want more on this issue, consult with a lawyer.


----------



## fb88 (Sep 8, 2011)

yes a paper thing as a warning would help, and in addition a video recording device aimed at driver/console (for RPM)/road when the car is powered on...


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

marsb007 said:


> Florida's dangerous instrumentality law does not apply to shops/mechanics. There is a specific exclusion, which you wouldn't know if you didn't do this type of law.


Thanks for your comment. It has always been my understanding that leaving your car with the dealer for service is a bailment and this concept would hold true in every state. I believe that is why you may see notices posted saying that the dealer is not responsible for valuables left in the car. Those valuables should be removed prior to leaving your car because the dealer (bailee) does not accept responsibility for them; they have nothing to do with the scope of the bailment.

In the event an accident takes place involving your car while being driven by one of the dealer's employees, that's all within their responsibility as bailee, even if it was unauthorized use by their employee. That is why the dealer is, or at least should be, extremely concerned if one of his employees uses your car to do something beyond the scope of the consent you gave. If it has nothing to do with fixing your car, then the dealer could have problems with his insurance company in the event of an accident. Picking up and dropping off other customers has absolutely nothing to do with fixing your car.



> The shop's GL policy would cover it, and they would be forced to indemnify, hold harmless and defend, if they didn't want to have a third party suit against them too.


+1



> My dealer did something similar... Even changed my presets (obviously they thought I'd appreciate listening to reggaeton), along with the faint smell of fast food and the fries I found (I have a strict no eating in my car policy unless you want my foot up your ass).


Agree 100%. That sort of thing is usually done by lot boys at the lowest rung on the pay scale who may or may not last very long. It's something that is totally the responsibility of the service manager to control. If it was done by the tech while he was working on your car, then it shows a really pitiful lack of supervision on the part of that service department and total disregard for the customer's car.



> If you want more on this issue, consult with a lawyer.


+1


----------



## marsb007 (Nov 22, 2012)

Ninong said:


> Thanks for your comment. It has always been my understanding that leaving your car with the dealer for service is a bailment and this concept would hold true in every state. I believe that is why you may see notices posted saying that the dealer is not responsible for valuables left in the car. Those valuables should be removed prior to leaving your car because the dealer (bailee) does not accept responsibility for them; they have nothing to do with the scope of the bailment.


In some instances, a general liability waiver, such as "we are not responsible for valuables left behind" may not be valid, especially if it's their people that steal them.

Some years back I went to dinner and HAD to valet my car, and in the process parted with an engraved iPod. Valet company paid up despite their "waiver" on the ticket.

Most people don't realize they may still be able to recover, so they just leave it alone (mea culpa).

Once again, first thing is not to even put yourself in that situation, but if it does happen, your mileage may vary according to what state you are in...


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

marsb007 said:


> In some instances, a general liability waiver, such as "we are not responsible for valuables left behind" may not be valid, especially if it's their people that steal them.


If you see a sign like that, it's main purpose is to discourage people from leaving personal valuables in the car. Or to discourage phony claims: "I left my $20,000 Rolex in the glove box of my BMW when I brought it in for service but then realized it was missing when I looked for it that evening."


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

Today when I dropped off my car at my local BMW center, the SA was showing me where to sign and specifically said -- "this gives us permission to operate the vehicle on the property." I don't have a copy yet, but I will see exactly what the language says when I pick up the car. Interesting that he qualified it that way.

Of course, they later decided they needed to keep the car overnight, so maybe they are using my car as a service shuttle too.


----------



## frank325 (Dec 29, 2005)

DDGator said:


> "this gives us permission to operate the vehicle on the property."


"on the property" is key there. I don't think the customer was picked up and shuttled around on their property


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

DDGator said:


> Agree with everything Ninong said.
> 
> I will only add that I also see two different issues here. Even IF the customer had given broad legal consent to any and all operation of the vehicle, that doesn't make it an acceptable business practice. Law and ethics are two different things.
> 
> At a minimum, this dealership (or maybe a rogue employee...to be generous) committed a significant ethical violation in using a customer's car in this fashion.


Edit- lets just say ninogs assertion that the permission one give the dealer is NOT restricted. Read the documnet you sign. Legally, not ethically.

Yes, it is poor customer service and an ethical violation. so what? What recourse do you have? none.

If they take it out joyriding, and nothing happens, you are never told. If they take it out joyriding and wreck it, the 'story' is "we were evlauting the fault" or "we were confirming the repair" when out of the blue, blah blah

Every time this stuff comes up- specifically a dealer screwing an owner over and wrecking their car- one of two things happens:

-dealers insurnace screws the owner by nickel and diming them with 'well you car WAS a year old so it is only worht 70% of what you paid" or
- owner is forced to go to his insurnace, they say "you car is only worht 70% of what you paid" and his rates go up AND he pays a deductible unti the insirunace settles with the dealer insurnace.

DD gator- did you really not collect a copy of what you signed? and relied on his verbal statement?  A verbal "on the property" is utterly worthless. The "key" is what is in writing.

Everyone assumes shops all have insurance. BMW dealer would. But when you drop a car at a shop do you realize they may not have insurnace? A shop local to me wrecked an Ford GT. They didnt have insurnace. quarter million onto the owners policy as it was a small show with limited assets.

Even a minor fender bender, you will suffer Diminished Value and your insurance , their inisrance and the dealer will tell you to pound sand.

Anyway, we can argue legalities- the key is not to put yourself in a positon where your property can be damaged. My cars with the signs on the windshield are dealt with in a class of their own. Keys are segregated and tagged..... I am sure everyine wants to think that "my baby" will received very special treatment, and will be cared for with the respect a BMW _______ deserves. But it is just one of a sea of shiny rich guy cars.

( I will allow ONE guy to drive the car: the tech who is working on it. I will authorize him to drive if he needs to.)

DD- like to hear if the release really actually says only 'on property'

OP- wonder if you do better than a car wash.


----------



## tturedraider (Nov 11, 2005)

ard said:


> 3. A dealership in TX took an M5 out joyriding. Totaled it. Told the owner to pound sand. He sued:
> 
> http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e6...drive-case-now-closed-after-16-months-39.html





ard said:


> Edit- lets just say ninogs assertion that the permission one give the dealer is NOT restricted. Read the documnet you sign. Legally, not ethically.
> 
> Yes, it is poor customer service and an ethical violation. so what? What recourse do you have? none.
> 
> ...


You're contradicting yourself. Autobahn BMW had to pay $160,000. $100,000 in attorneys' fees and $60,000 to the owner and he got to keep the car, albeit wrecked, but, of course, it had salvage value.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

ard said:


> Edit- lets just say ninogs assertion that the permission one give the dealer is NOT restricted.


What?

I didn't say the permission you give the dealer is not restricted. I said exactly the opposite. I said it's a bailment. That means that you (bailor) give the dealer (bailee) permission to perform service or repairs to your vehicle strictly within the bounds of that limited authorization. The bailee assumes full responsibility for your property (car) while it is in his possession and he is fully responsible for any damages caused by his employees while using your car, whether for authorized or unauthorized purposes. The dealer's garage owner's policy covers that. Where he would be in serious trouble with his insurance company would be if he authorized using your car to shuttle service customers to and from their jobs because that is positively beyond the scope of the bailment you authorized.

When you leave your car for service, you are authorizing ONLY the service and/or repairs you signed for and your authorization is strictly limited to the scope of that bailment. It is positively restricted. That is why the dealer is supposed to call you for permission before taking your car home overnight or doing anything not authorized by you.

That dealer who lied about how the Marine pilot's 650i convertible was totaled and then fought him in court over the claim was a fool. He could have saved himself $160,000 plus the cost of his own attorneys' fees by just agreeing to give the guy full retail for his car from the beginning.


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

ard said:


> Every time this stuff comes up- specifically a dealer screwing an owner over and wrecking their car- one of two things happens:
> 
> -dealers insurnace screws the owner by nickel and diming them with 'well you car WAS a year old so it is only worht 70% of what you paid" or
> - owner is forced to go to his insurnace, they say "you car is only worht 70% of what you paid" and his rates go up AND he pays a deductible unti the insirunace settles with the dealer insurnace.


Every time? Really?

First of all, if the BMW dealer wrecks your car, you're in control of the situation. He (meaning his insurance company) has to satisfy you. Never should you file a claim with your own insurance company if your car was wrecked by the dealer. That sounds like the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The purpose of insurance is to make you whole. If your car was a year old, it's not worth the same as it was worth when it was new but since it wasn't your fault and since you're not dealing with your own insurance company, you don't have to accept the dealer's insurance company's first offer. Making you whole means replacing your car with another equal or better than the one you had. That means tax, license and registration expense, too. It also means that you have to agree to the replacement. That means you get to approve the replacement. Of course, you could also agree to a cash settlement equal to full retail plus tax and license if you prefer. Or you could push for full retail value of your car as a trade-in against the sale price of a new BMW if that's what you would prefer.

Eventually they have to get you to sign a release and the longer that takes, the longer you're driving their loaner or racking up rental car expense.

You shouldn't have to be out a single penny and in the meantime, you should be driving a nice loaner provided by the dealer. Unless the dealer wants you to rack up rental car expenses.


----------



## DDGator (Mar 4, 2013)

ard said:


> Yes, it is poor customer service and an ethical violation. so what? What recourse do you have? none.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


There is still recourse for poor customer service and ethical violations. If you pursue it, you can get a lot of mileage out of this -- even if you can't sue them in court. I wouldn't be content with my "legal" remedy in this situation. BMW doesn't keep its reputation as a premium brand by standing on their legal rights and denying poor customer service.

I did not get a copy of the work order. This is my local BMW Center and I have a certain level of trust. I don't want to be the guy who insists on a copy of his paperwork and self-identifies as a PITA before anything happens. If things go wrong, I can get a copy of the paperwork and assess my legal rights.

Also, my car is a leased 3-series with a couple of dings on the wheels and 30k miles. I love my car, but I'm not obsessed over its condition at this point. If it was a brand new M5, I might feel differently.

I'll post a photo of my local Center's language when I pick up the car -- which may be Saturday at this rate.


----------



## MCChuck (Jun 21, 2012)

dima123 said:


> You went to the MetLife stadium event? They have m4 to test drive? I'm going Thursday; so I'm curious.


I was at the Wednesday evening event. My invite was thru BMW of Manhattan. Choice of driving on street any 7 series, 6 series, M6 vert, M6GC, M3, M4 or Alpina B6. I drove the B6. Was able to stretch its legs pretty well. And really test the brakes too! Then did 3 auto cross laps, driven and as driver in an M3.







Then had the chefs 3 course demonstration dinner. 
Sorry to hijack the thread.....back to original topic


----------



## Mykatie (Aug 8, 2012)

MCChuck said:


> I was at the Wednesday evening event. My invite was thru BMW of Manhattan. Choice of driving on street any 7 series, 6 series, M6 vert, M6GC, M3, M4 or Alpina B6. I drove the B6. Was able to stretch its legs pretty well. And really test the brakes too! Then did 3 auto cross laps, driven and as driver in an M3.
> View attachment 503947
> 
> Then had the chefs 3 course demonstration dinner.
> Sorry to hijack the thread.....back to original topic


I was invited to the one they had Monday. The chef at our dinner was the guy who helps bar rescue. He also has his own restaurants.


----------



## HurricaneDitka (Dec 18, 2012)

Saw this in the local news. Not exactly an M5 but still

Dashcam Video Shows Dealership Employee Taking Suburban Man's Car on Joy Ride
The car reached speeds in the 90 mile per hour range, according to data from the dashcam

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Dashcam-Video-Shows-Dealership-Employee-Taking-Car-on-Joy-Ride-301081551.html


----------



## Ninong (May 20, 2014)

HurricaneDitka said:


> Saw this in the local news. Not exactly an M5 but still
> 
> Dashcam Video Shows Dealership Employee Taking Suburban Man's Car on Joy Ride
> The car reached speeds in the 90 mile per hour range, according to data from the dashcam
> ...


Ninety-six mph in a 50 mph speed zone! I guess he just wanted to warm up the oil before doing an oil change.


----------



## need4speed (May 26, 2006)

Ninong said:


> Ninety-six mph in a 50 mph speed zone! I guess he just wanted to warm up the oil before doing an oil change.


Making sure the tie rods were good and tight! N4S


----------



## avalily (Jan 17, 2015)

mikeriley said:


> Here is an update on what has been happening.
> After reading these threads I decided to be more involved and contacted both BMW USA and AutoNation. The rep at BMW was shocked to hear what had happened, that they could not believe it. I told the rep that I wanted to be compensated I suggested a months payment or MSchool. She said she would reach out to the Field Rep/After sales regional manager to see what they would do. BMW USA called the next day and said they spoke with the central territory manager and she did not think it was a big deal and would not offer any assistance and refused to speak with me, that is "something she does not do" is what I was told by BMW usa.
> AutoNation called last week after many many tweets, you can follow if you want @robertsalem23. People are following this and retweeting already. I spoke with the regional manager who said he would look into this. Have not heard back.


I wouldn't rule out the option of suing in small claims -- this is pretty egregious.

I really doesn't make much difference to me whether this was some low guy on the totem pole who did this without authorization, or whether it is the dealer's policy. The dealer has the responsibility of making sure this does not happen. However it happened is almost irrelevant -- the dealer failed in its responsibility. And regardless of what you signed, unless it explicitly gives them authorization to use your car as a shuttle, there is no question this will be outside the scope of whatever consent you gave.

The question of course is damages. Get creative. If you sue, asking for 1 month's payment or the M driving school won't work because you need to tie it rationally into your damages. How long did they have your car for? You could try for # of days multiplied by going rental rate, plus the cost of detailing and gas. But I'm not even sure that's adequate -- if you rent from say Hertz or Budget, can you use the rental cars for commercial use? By using it as a shuttle, they're essentially profiting off of your car by using it for business use. You could possibly justify even more if that kind of use would violate a standard rental car agreement, especially if it would also violate your insurance. There might be even more you could justify, but I think a rental car rate at a very minimum is easy to justify. For reference, looks like you can justify a daily rental rate of $375-ish. (http://hertzdreamcars.com/vehicles/bmw-m5-sedan)

At a minimum, it would get their attention.


----------



## justinnum1 (Nov 22, 2011)

Alan McLaren is who you want to talk to. 

954-769-6000


----------



## Mykatie (Aug 8, 2012)

mikeriley said:


> Here is an update on what has been happening.
> After reading these threads I decided to be more involved and contacted both BMW USA and AutoNation. The rep at BMW was shocked to hear what had happened, that they could not believe it. I told the rep that I wanted to be compensated I suggested a months payment or MSchool. She said she would reach out to the Field Rep/After sales regional manager to see what they would do. BMW USA called the next day and said they spoke with the central territory manager and she did not think it was a big deal and would not offer any assistance and refused to speak with me, that is "something she does not do" is what I was told by BMW usa.
> AutoNation called last week after many many tweets, you can follow if you want @robertsalem23. People are following this and retweeting already. I spoke with the regional manager who said he would look into this. Have not heard back.


I hope you do most of your correspondence via email. It keeps the he said she said factor to a minimum. If someone has to respond in an email rather than voice I think they tend to realize they need to take it serious and keep to their word. If it gets to small claims court everything is clear to see.


----------



## 335Fanatic (Aug 6, 2009)

mikeriley said:


> Here is an update on what has been happening.
> After reading these threads I decided to be more involved and contacted both BMW USA and AutoNation. The rep at BMW was shocked to hear what had happened, that they could not believe it. I told the rep that I wanted to be compensated I suggested a months payment or MSchool. She said she would reach out to the Field Rep/After sales regional manager to see what they would do. BMW USA called the next day and said they spoke with the central territory manager and she did not think it was a big deal and would not offer any assistance and refused to speak with me, that is "something she does not do" is what I was told by BMW usa.
> AutoNation called last week after many many tweets, you can follow if you want @robertsalem23. People are following this and retweeting already. I spoke with the regional manager who said he would look into this. Have not heard back.


OP, any further updates?


----------



## Mykatie (Aug 8, 2012)

335Fanatic said:


> OP, any further updates?


He was called in for a sit down and never heard from again.


----------



## guyver626 (Mar 5, 2013)

He had to accept or be killed by the mob lol. 

If he doesn't reply soon let's all assume he got everything he was asking for and had to sign some docs stating he will never talk about the situation ever again.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

guyver626 said:


> He had to accept or be killed by the mob lol.
> 
> If he doesn't reply soon let's all assume he got everything he was asking for and had to sign some docs stating he will never talk about the situation ever again.


Or BMW screwed him with a free wash, and he is too embarassed to post the trurth after all the bluster from others as to 'what he deserves'


----------



## guyver626 (Mar 5, 2013)

ard said:


> Or BMW screwed him with a free wash, and he is too embarassed to post the trurth after all the bluster from others as to 'what he deserves'


If that happened to me then I would raise hell and post the dealer name on every social website there was.


----------



## BMWXX55 (Mar 13, 2014)

What ever happened?


----------



## need4speed (May 26, 2006)

guyver626 said:


> He had to accept or be killed by *the mob *lol.
> 
> If he doesn't reply soon let's all assume he got everything he was asking for and had to sign some docs stating he will never talk about the situation ever again.


Only if it was a Cadillac


----------

