My Mazda5 got flooded at the dealership!

[smaria]

smaria sounds like you may be getting somewhere... (nana)

I hope so!

have you approached the dealer? have they been supporting/empathetic? (monkey)

I haven't talked to the dealer yet about resolution...the dealer and I both need to hear from our insurance companies first, so I know where things stand and I know what I need to ask for (or demand). The dealer was nice enough during our first phone call, but not very useful: he kindly mentioned the lemon law option to me...definitely his way of trying to shift some of the liability to MazdaUSA.

 

[Libra]

Demand a new one as a replacement to your flood damaged vehicle, and remind the dealership that a flood damaged vehicle will not re-sell as well. If they say anything about it, insist them that they sell it if they are so confident that it would sell. Also look into getting extra perks for the Mazda 5 (roof racks, step plates, tons of accessories) for retribution on the recall and the dealership damage to your vehicle. All else fails, and then go in with a lawyer.

 

[skiph]

I've consulted some legal sources, and I've come up with a possible strategy to solve my problem. It holds the dealer liable for the flooding. I won't know if this'll work until I hear from the appraisers at the insurance companies, but it seems like my best shot, and it seems to be legally legit. I'm throwing it out here in case anyone has any advice/comments:

(1) The dealer is liable for the flood-related repairs, so his insurance company pays for it (that part's obvious). But, less obvious is that the insurance company also needs to pay for "diminished value" in third-party situations. "Diminished value" is defined as the value of the vehicle before the accident (in this case flooding) minus the price after the flooding...courts have supposedly upheld this in every state.

(2) Since the vehicle was nearly brand new before the incident, and after the incident will be worth whatever the dealer gives me for it as a trade-in, the "diminished value" should be roughly the "new-car value" minus the "trade-in value". So, "trade-in value" plus "diminished value" should be enough to get me a new Mazda5 from the dealer. In effect, I'll trade in the flooded Mazda5 for a brand new one, and the insurance company pays the difference in price on the transaction.

(3) If the insurance company's "diminished value" award plus the dealer's trade-in price aren't enough to buy me a new Mazda5, I'll give the dealer 3 options: (1) increase the amount that they're giving me for the trade-in, (2) decrease the price that they'll sell me the new Mazda5, or (2) act on my behalf to get the insurance company to raise their "diminished value" payout.

Whew! I'll let you know how things play out...
Steve

Steve:

Here is a link to a story about flood damaged cars from the Gulf Coast Katrina/Rita disaster areas that you might find interesting.

The bottom line is....you probably don't want your car back in any way, shape, or form, especially if the water was up as high as you mentioned.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Saveonacar/P129008.asp

Might also be a heads up for any others who might find a "hot" deal on a "new" M5 or other brand/model of car in the near future.

Good luck in getting a settlement.

(Shamelessly cross posted from Edmunds/Mazda 5 forum)

 

[boogaboo]

Hey smaria,

is this your Mazda5 selling on eBay??? (boom07)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mazd...Z6316QQitemZ4587098797QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

 

[chuyler1]

Just a reminder....if your car was flooded...many of the other new cars may have been flooded also. ...make sure you state that you want a new car from a different dealership that wasn't flooded.

 

[smaria]

is this your Mazda5 selling on eBay??? (boom07)

Nope, not mine.

My saga finally ended last Friday, once my insurance company finally decided to look at the car (before that point, I had no independent assessment of how high the water had gotten or what had actually been damaged on the car). Here's what happened:

(1) my insurance company told me that the water-damage was much much less than I had feared. Although some of the dealer's cars had been totlaed, the water on mine had just barely gotten up to the bottom of the door (just below half-way up the wheels). In fact, my insurance company and the mechanic, after diagnosing the car, found that there was no immediate water damage at all, and that the car just needed to be detailed. A far cry from my worries about a totaled car.
(2) the dealer payed for the detailing (which appears to be what other dealers are doing, so this wasn't anything special).
(3) my insurance company said that any future flood-related problems can be covered under this same claim, so they wouldn't cost me anything to fix. For example, if some electrical wires corrode next year, my insurance company will pay to fix/replace them.
(4) MazdaUSA offered me an extra $250 in service coupons for my trouble.

So, in the end, this worked out because the water was fresh water (not corrosive salt water) and didn't get high enough to cause any immediate damage. I had to pay nothing to get the car cleaned up, and my insurance company is giving me the "insurance" that allows me to stop worrying about future car problems caused by this incident.

So I picked up my Mazda5 on Friday night:

(1) clean
(2) dry
(3) detailed
(4) driving as good as new

...and most importantly...

(5) insured against any future potential flood-related problems that may or may not ever pop up

I'm so happy to finally have my car back, and I'm so glad that this all eventually got resolved without actually having to yell at anyone or file a lemon law claim!

 

[chuyler1]

Sounds good....there is no musty smell in the car right?

 

[smaria]

Sounds good....there is no musty smell in the car right?

Nope, no musty smell. It smelled like Armor All when they gave the car back to me...that smell's faded and still no musty smell. I think the garage did a good job of drying the car out immediately.

Anyways, I'm satisfied, and very happy to move on.

 

[ZoomVT]

maybe its just because im money hungry but i would actually go the lemon law route and also sue the dealership for negligence. (not sure if its negligence since they actually knew about it but decided not to move your car on time, so its even worse for them). That way you would get a new 5 plus money for the inconvenience of not havnig your car, etc. i would still go with the lemon route cause even if everything works out, they may still short changed you and end up having to pay extra for a new 5. Just my 2 cents.

 

[bazooka joe]

talk to your attorney!

 

[smaria]

i would actually go the lemon law route and also sue the dealership for negligence. That way you would get a new 5 plus money for the inconvenience of not havnig your car, etc.

I looked in detail at both of those options, lemon law and sueing the dealer, but both of them seem like a lot of work (time and energy, etc.) for an outcome that's questionable at best. I've consulted with insurance companies, other Mazda dealers, attorneys, etc., so I've heard all of the angles. Yes, best case, I get a brand new Mazda5 and a little bit of cash. But, worst case, I lose the court cases and get nothing except large lawyer fees! Or, alternate worse case, I get a new Mazda5 but it has problems of its own that my current Mazda5 doesn't have (such as a rattle, noisey engine, etc.).

Also, if I file the lemon law, it'd go after MazdaUSA and try to make them pay. I don't like that option because I am not upset with MazdaUSA, I'm upset with the dealer. If I sue the dealer, he can claim that he had no idea the lot was going to flood, and couldn't get to the car in time. There were no witnesses except for the dealer's employees, so how can I prove that the dealer COULD have moved the car in time if he wanted to? In other words, can I really prove the dealer was negligent, as the law requires? I could potentially win the case, but I see it as an iffy-at-best outcome.

As of Friday, I've finally seen my car and driven it around, and it feels like new to me. Mazda's giving me an extra $250 for my trouble (a total of $750) and my insurance company has assured me I don't need to worry about future damages related to this claim (they'll cover any future repairs under the same claim).

So, at this point NOT taking legal action actually gives me a whole lot more peace of mind. Sorry to end this little piece of drama so un-dramatically!

 

[Kaian]

One thing you should do, which you may have already, is write an extensive letter on what happened to you and how your dealer treated you and send it directly to MazdaUSA. I assume at this point you would not buy another vehicle from this dealer? As the dealers are the "public face" of MazdaUSA, I think it is important for Mazda to know when their dealers treat customers in an unacceptable manner.

 

[smaria]

As the dealers are the "public face" of MazdaUSA, I think it is important for Mazda to know when their dealers treat customers in an unacceptable manner.

Yup, I informed MazdaUSA all about the situation. They didn't help by pressuring the dealer to help me, but at least they know all the details of the situation (that's why they offered me an extra $250). So, to MazdaUSA, this dealer cost them $250 and a very unhappy customer for 3-4 weeks. This experience won't stop me from buying Mazda products, but it'll definitely stop me from ever going back to that dealer.

Steve