SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
21 - 40 of 122 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Good lucky finding a 2021 that isn't a loaner car in stock (the 2021 Inscription the OPs dealer has is a loaner car for example). There hasn't been a 21 XC90 on my lot for months. Yes cars are selling fast, but there are less getting sold now.. the numbers are down. I'm making less money even selling them at full sticker. But that really shouldn't be a factor either way.. as how much or little a dealer is making isn't really part of "doing the right thing" correct?

How is selling a car at lower than market prices AND making up for the loss of equity "doing the right thing"? And that's my point. The OP is trying to get a non market price for the new car and a market price for the totaled trade. It's a bad situation, but I don't see how that's a fair ask. Personally I'd gladly lose that customer, and as a sales person, it wouldn't even really affect me, I just don't think it's good business at all. You could make a point that a dealer should treat the situation as best they can in a normal situation... or maybe treat the trade like today and new car like today. But how is it sensible to say that the trade should be treated to todays numbers but the sale on the new car be treated like it was 2020.

The dealer isn't getting ANYTHING for the totaled vehicle... it's not the dealers car, it's Volvos. So anything to compensate for equity loss is 100% loss to the dealer. No way around that unless VCFS is going to give up the cash, and I genuinely doubt that they will, but as I said, that's where the equity money is going. I assume VCFS is going to get the payout from the insurance company and keep the equity for themselves. By the contract, I believe that's how it's written. But the dealer doesn't see any of that.

We had an older C30 totaled in our care. A tech was driving it and got T boned by someone who ignored a stop sign. We had all the workers comp expense, lost a tech for a month for medical stuff, and paid for the customers car... of course they still wanted more and then we said no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aptosca

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
I second this, too. If negotiations don't prove fruitful, I'd consult an attorney. Have him read over the lease terms, valet contract, etc. See what your legal options are at your disposal. As I would imagine Volvo leaving you without a car and the equity are avenues worth investigating.
As with any insurance claim on total loss (such as this incident or theft as an example) is to make the customer whole. In this case it would seem making the customer whole would be giving them a comparable car as to what they had prior to the loss through equivalent value. What would it cost to purchase a car with comparable age, mileage, and features in similar condition. The complication of course is the lease aspect and a whether or not the agreement has gap insurance. Plus as @DFrantz points out Volvo's agreement has something about leaser keeping any higher appraised value in a loss. Perhaps given the circumstances the potential upside is what the dealer may offer above and beyond. It'll be to their best interest to at least recover the car's full value at the time of the loss so they'll be in a better position to provide goodwill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,631 Posts
@VolvoUhu

The question becomes what is a comparable car. I have never leased a vehicle, but I assume the Op leased a brand new car.

So is comparable same make, model, features, and mileage? Or is comparable a car worth a similar value?

The second problem becomes, if Volvo finds him an identical car with all the same safety features and similar mileage, the car is still used. The op having obtained his vehicle new knows how the car was driven, what type of fuel was put into the car, and whether the mileage was City or Highway. Maybe op only drove Highway and the other car was driven exclusively City by some jerk that drove it hard and rough. Along with using the crappiest and cheapest fuel possible. Or maybe that replacemwnt car had a history of issues that needed fixed over the duration of those mileage, too.

So the Op would be taking a chance assuming a vehicle somebody else owned up until the mileage in which he acquired it as a replacement. While technically equitable, I wouldn't be happy with that solution. Not unless Volvo intends on throwing a 10-year / unlimited mile CPO warranty as a peace of mind . Because you just never know how that car is going to handle long term. Especially since the op intended to purchase the car at the end of the lease.

So this isn't a good situation no matter how you break it down. Though I did message the op and he thinks the dealer is trying to make the situation right. So we'll see what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
So nothing in that contract seems set up to give a customer any proceeds from insurance paying more than the buyout. You could call VCFS and ask... but they've been stiffing dealers in the current market so I'm sure they'll stiff a customer too. I think it's unlikely to get more than a discount on the new car.
Instead of asking for the proceeds, couldn’t OP just call VCFS and buy the car. Then the dealer would be dealing directly with OP. It would then be easier for OP to recoup the lost value directly from insurance, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,385 Posts
A customer doesn't care if it's the local dealer, Volvo Corporate, VCFS, or whatever entity related to Volvo. To the customer, it's Volvo, you guys figure it out, so if VCFS is in fact getting insurance proceeds far and above the buy out on the lease and somehow doesn't figure out a way for those proceeds to benefit the customer, especially in this unusual circumstance then that's a terrible move. Companies need to break down walls to provide good customer service and here's an opportunity for Volvo to do just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OlRedHair

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
You could buy the car.. but then you have a totaled car. Even once reconstructed, it would be greatly lower in value to the extend I don't think it makes sense to do. However, the fact that you can would satisfy the contract. Note... no one ever complains that when a lease is totaled in normal times that VCFS takes the full hit on the car. It's generally one of the advantages of leasing. You walk away, contract satisfied other than the turn in fee if the insurance doesn't pay the car in full and you are not penalized for either the total loss, or in a repairable accident, with depreciation due to the bad carfax. Let's face it, when the OP leased the car a few years back they didn't do it with a plan of having $10k equity. It existed "yesterday" but today today it's gone. The lease contract is satisfied.

So yes, it was the dealers fault (assuming it was the drivers fault, we don't have the full story there), but certainly it was in their care. Yes, it's reasonable to say the dealer ought to make things right. I would agree that helping with the purchase price is very reasonable. But I genuinely don't see why anyone could think beyond a fleeting dream that you should be entitled to a huge discount in a market that offers none as well as full compensation for a car greatly overvalued only due to the current market. At absolute most, you could say you feel they owe you the equity lost but you're willing to buy the car at todays market price. That would be an equivalent to the accident not happening. But you're effectively asking for a multi thousand dollar payoff to "keep you a happy customer" and that's when a customer is no longer a worth while customer to have. Again, if you feel that you should have more, then an attorney is the only sensible way to go. I'm just speaking for a common sense approach here.

VCFS is allowing customers to trade in for a Volvo and capture the equity. But if you want to trade in with anyone else they (like many but not all manufacturers) are requiring that you pay them off first and then trade it in. You can't even go to a Volvo dealer and offer to sell it to them for the buyout, we can only buy it from the customer. If a lease is turned in now, the dealer gets first right of refusal, but not for the buyout. It's for thousands more. So they are raking in huge money on many of these contracts, and a totaled vehicle would likely be similar. Reach out to VCFS and ask them what happens with the extra money... That's where the missing dollars are. The dealer doesn't have them.
 

·
Registered
2004 V70 T5M -- 2019 V90CC T6
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
What do you mean by this? I'm curious what makes a customer worthwhile from a dealership perspective.
The money they bring in lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFrantz

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
The money they bring in lol
That's what I was thinking they meant, but it's a very shortsighted perspective. They'll be taking the car to the dealership for service and future purchases as well as telling friends and family about how the dealership took care of them. That makes them still worthwhile even from a money perspective, correct?

This is why I hate dealerships though. All about the $$$.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
What do you mean by this? I'm curious what makes a customer worthwhile from a dealership perspective.
It's pretty simple... over the course of a lifetime a customer gives a business a certain amount of dollars. Granted, if you've bought 10 cars from the same dealer over 20 years, that's different than if this is your first Volvo. But this notion that "if you don't lose $15k right now I won't buy a car from you again and I'll tell my friends" just is not a viable threat. Customers are generally fickle... because people are fickle, and customers are people. If the dealer does absolutely nothing in this case, they don't lose any money right now. They have a potential to lose some business in the future, but there is always the opportunity to replace it with other business as well. Every car they have in stock will be selling for MSRP or sometimes more. Frankly every car sells no matter the market. So you're not doing them a favor sticking around for a $15k loss. There just isn't a good chance of making that back up... Goodwill programs in business are always tied to realistic future profits, not some emotional feeling of moral good nature. There are certainly customers that are worth more than others. It's not because they spend too much, but because they keep coming back. So we don't know the OPs history with Volvo or the dealer. If this was their first Volvo, or they tend to shop around and buy from whoever is saving them $100, that's just frankly not worth a whole lot of grief. If they have bought 10 cars from the same dealer and always service with them then that's certainly worth quite a bit more.

I'm truly thankful for every customer I have and every car I sell, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant to the fact that someone else is coming in as well. I get lots of repeat business from providing good service, but that is just time I've spent invested in the brand and knowledge to provide help to folks, it's how I spend much of my downtime at work. Most of the time I spend on the forum is to better understand the brand, as well as things customers face. I try to provide help for forum members and also perspective from a sales side. But I never believe the customer is always right and there are folks I'm glad are not customers too. The OP doesn't seem to fall in this case upfront... but I don't know how to justify a $15k loss to keep a customer... I mean you could take that money into marketing and make a great deal more back. It's just not a good investment in nearly any case to pay that kind of money for a single customer. Further, I don't see how it can be morally expected because again, you're asking for a discount on the new car because of what happened, and a high equity because of when it happened. That's asking for making it right double.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
That's what I was thinking they meant, but it's a very shortsighted perspective. They'll be taking the car to the dealership for service and future purchases as well as telling friends and family about how the dealership took care of them. That makes them still worthwhile even from a money perspective, correct?

This is why I hate dealerships though. All about the $$$.
Every business is about making money. The pick up and drop off service is about making money and being competitive. That why I try to be as informed as possible for my customers, it's about making money. I volunteer plenty as well. But this is my job. If you aren't about making money at your job then you're not not helping your company grow. Customer retention isn't all that high in the car industry. It's better with Volvo than other brands I've been with, but it's simply not a high number to count on.

And how is this ANY different than a customer trying to maximize the situation? It's all about the money. Customer wants BOTH a huge discount for the current market AND a huge equity lost payment. Is that not all about the money? When you want more for your trade than it's worth, isn't that all about he money? Customers get so darn self righteous about this and fail to see they are the exact same... unless you always just walk in and pay full sticker, let the dealer keep the rebates, and give them your trade for nothing.
 

·
Registered
2004 V70 T5M -- 2019 V90CC T6
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
Frankly every car sells no matter the market.
Off-topic, but the P3 Polestars sitting on lots here for over a year are beginning to beg to differ. lol. Apparently used sales managers bought them for too much and margins are non-existent for their asking price at ~$45-48k USD. Dealers are not willing to go a penny under, resulting in big time dust collection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFrantz

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Off-topic, but the P3 Polestars sitting on lots here for over a year are beginning to beg to differ. lol. Apparently used sales managers bought them for too much and margins are non-existent for their asking price at ~$45-48k USD. Dealers are not willing to go a penny under, resulting in big time dust collection.
They'll eventually sell. They probably own them for too much... But everything sells. We have a used one as well here that hasn't got much interest. I think it's an interesting car.... It's the last gas Polestar... but folks who want a current polestar are often into the T8 thing. I picked up my 2012 T6 P* for a fraction of the nearly $50k the 2017 and 2018s book out for... And most folks would rather have two regular S60s than one Polestar.... if they even know what it is. Probably will end up like the flash green cars, as highly prized by collectors in 25 years.... if gas is still generally available. They are more fun to drive to me than the SPA polestar cars.

Ours is a 18 just under 20k... CPO, and listed at $48k. It's white though... but I would take a penny less if someone offered. Would be a good car to get a CPO wrap on and thrash for many years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,631 Posts
You could buy the car.. but then you have a totaled car. Even once reconstructed, it would be greatly lower in value to the extend I don't think it makes sense to do. However, the fact that you can would satisfy the contract. Note... no one ever complains that when a lease is totaled in normal times that VCFS takes the full hit on the car. It's generally one of the advantages of leasing. You walk away, contract satisfied other than the turn in fee if the insurance doesn't pay the car in full and you are not penalized for either the total loss, or in a repairable accident, with depreciation due to the bad carfax. Let's face it, when the OP leased the car a few years back they didn't do it with a plan of having $10k equity. It existed "yesterday" but today today it's gone. The lease contract is satisfied.
.
But we're not in a normal market and Volvo gets cake and ice cream in this deal, too. The car likely has very little depreciation being a lease (mileage) and relatively newer in an insane market. Volvo is going to walk away with the amount OP paid into the lease and probably close to 90-100% retail value on an insurance claim. So Volvo isn't eating any depreciation.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if Volvo would legally be on the hook for economic damages to OP. While the contract spells out what happens when a car is totaled, is there a clause about negligence? Let's say the Valet caused the crash and was found at fault while in possession of the car.

1. How long is Volvo Obligated to provide a loaner / rental? - I assume at least until the insurance claim is settled?

2. Does the law permit Economic Damages for Negligence? - OP missed days of work having to deal with insurance claims, find a new car, etc

Public Relations Nightmare. Let's say the OP is entitled to Zero Equity. Dealer gets insurance claim. Op goes to an attorney and then to the press. Has local news or consumer advocate go beat on the Dealer's Door for Comment about negligently totaling the OP's car. That sort of press was be a nightmare for the dealer.

I still think Volvo / Volvo Dealer will want this worked out "quietly" and without lawyers involved. But we shall see.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
It seems you're conflating Volvo and the dealership. They are two separate entities with two very different budgets.

Volvo isn't "Obligated" to provide a loaner at all. The lease contract is completed. If this was my customer and we were working towards a good resolution I would certainly do all I could to provide a loaner though... but that's very different than an obligation.

I don't know if the law permits economic damages for negligence (or if negligence was involved). That's an attorney question, which I suggested to be consulted if more is being sought if the dealer isn't doing what you think is your legal right.

PR nightmare... not really. Even if the dealer did nothing, it's one customer. Do you think it's newsworthy to have a dealership not do the right thing by your book? Dealer does NOT get the insurance claim. I'm not sure why you keep saying that. Volvo does. Volvo owns the car and they are the lienholder for the insurance. It's not like the dealership did something intentionally wrong. A driver was performing a courtesy, and something happened and there was an accident. We don't know anything about what the dealer is offering to do to help other than hold the car so far. OP asked for advice on negotiating. I am not saying he shouldn't ask for the world, I'm just saying it's irrational. What's the press going to do? You had a contract, it's satisfied. Dealers offering you a car at an amazing deal that no one else is getting right now (if invoice were to be offered).

Breaking news: car dealership acts just like you would expect!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
In this case, Volvo wins (insurance payout), customer loses, and dealer loses. Potentially the customer can get back to a break even, but it will require the dealer to lose more. I would agree that's just a part of doing business... but doing more and doing everything are very different statements. I can not for the life of me understand the expectation of both giving a great deal in a booming market AND paying for the full equity lost... that's the part that makes absolutely zero sense to me. That is beyond "break even" as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davsanto

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,631 Posts
It seems you're conflating Volvo and the dealership. They are two separate entities with two very different budgets.
1. Dealer created mess.
2. Dealer or Volvo are two entities that can be negotiated with in an attempt to seek a resolution

Volvo isn't "Obligated" to provide a loaner at all. The lease contract is completed. If this was my customer and we were working towards a good resolution I would certainly do all I could to provide a loaner though... but that's very different than an obligation.
If Dealer / Volvo didn't provide a loaner, then that would be an attorney question for Economic Damages. I believe OP has a loaner though f I recall? So this wouldn't be at play if true.

I don't know if the law permits economic damages for negligence (or if negligence was involved). That's an attorney question, which I suggested to be consulted if more is being sought if the dealer isn't doing what you think is your legal right.
Agreed here on an attorney if it "came to that".

PR nightmare... not really. Even if the dealer did nothing, it's one customer. Do you think it's newsworthy to have a dealership not do the right thing by your book? Dealer does NOT get the insurance claim. I'm not sure why you keep saying that. Volvo does. Volvo owns the car and they are the lienholder for the insurance. It's not like the dealership did something intentionally wrong. A driver was performing a courtesy, and something happened and there was an accident. We don't know anything about what the dealer is offering to do to help other than hold the car so far. OP asked for advice on negotiating. I am not saying he shouldn't ask for the world, I'm just saying it's irrational. What's the press going to do? You had a contract, it's satisfied. Dealers offering you a car at an amazing deal that no one else is getting right now (if invoice were to be offered).

Breaking news: car dealership acts just like you would expect!
I would say it "Depends" on the Newsworthiness.

1. If OP found out the Valet was joyriding in the car and was negligent, that might make for a good story. Local Dealer takes persons car, employee joyrides, and totals vehicle.

2. On the other hand, if it was some mundane act or the valet wasn't at fault, then it wouldn't be newsworthy.

So who owns the leases and cars on the lot? Volvo or the dealer?

So if Volvo owns the car, who gets the lease payments? Volvo? Not the Dealer?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,631 Posts
In this case, Volvo wins (insurance payout), customer loses, and dealer loses. Potentially the customer can get back to a break even, but it will require the dealer to lose more. I would agree that's just a part of doing business... but doing more and doing everything are very different statements. I can not for the life of me understand the expectation of both giving a great deal in a booming market AND paying for the full equity lost... that's the part that makes absolutely zero sense to me. That is beyond "break even" as well.
So who got the lease payments? Volvo or Dealer? If Dealer got lease payments and Volvo owners the car, Dealer isn't losing anything. Even if Dealer refunded Lease Payments, the Dealer didn't own car and the Dealer totaled the car. So basically, it issued a "refund". Wrecking the OP's car (assuming dealer employee is at fault), then Dealer created the mess.

On Volvo Wins (Insurance Payout). Well, again, a dealer employee wrecked the car while in its possession.

The answer to "how much or what" Volvo owes OP would be a "Legal Question" for an attorney based on the contract or state laws.

Cost of a rental? Economic Damages (Lost Work, Economic Hardships due to loss of vehicle, etc).

I really can't answer the second part, since I am not an attorney. But from a Business perspective, and Volvo wanting to project itself as a "Luxury Brand" and "Luxury Customer Service", I would hope either the dealer or Volvo would go to bat for this customer. So that the customer isn't out financially for an overall bad situation.

Lawyers sour relationships. It doesn't seem that it will go that route by OP's message to me. But it always remains an option if negotiations fail.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
I highly doubt the driver was joy riding... most drivers are older retired folks. But we don't know one way or the other.

Leases are owned by Volvo. Cars on the lot are owned by dealers. Most dealers are paying interest on all the cars in stock, it's called floorplan.

Volvo gets the lease payment. Dealer only gets the difference between sale price and invoice and anything from holdback that isn't used in operations costs when they sell a Volvo, regardless of lease or finance or cash. Leasing and financing would have a few bucks too for the financing side of things, but generally it's not too much, especially if you're getting the money factor with no bump. We really don't make a ton of money selling new cars in a normal environment, such as when the OP got his car. Dealer loses a customer potentially right? They lose any cost of goodwill they didn't otherwise have to do. They lose their reputation because of the situation. There is no win for the dealer here, only potential and real loses. They might loose a driver too (either because the driver did do something negligent, or maybe the driver just feels it's not worth the anxiety anymore... I've seen that). If they do all you suggest would be good, to loose the $15k... how long will it take to make that up? Is OP really any more likely to use them enough to make it worth that amount? It's not a good situation for the dealer no matter how it pans out, even doing nothing.

If your standard is "the customer isn't out" then again, that is less than getting full equity and selling the car for less than the current market. IMO that would be getting a comparable vehicle for the same lease terms (much as if often done for lemon law mitigation). Giving $10k equity and invoice pricing would be far more compensation than is needed to accomplish that. So by your own standards of what is right, asking for that is asking for far too much. OP wants a vehicle upgrade and to switch to finance here so you can't quite do that as apples to apples, but you could figure out how to get there with the same compensation (by simply structuring a lease to see what it takes to get there and then applying that to the new purchase. The big loss here is that the dealer could otherwise sell the car for much more, and replacing it for the lot is a challenge, and to overcome the loss of rebates that currently don't exist but would have been a factor at time of lease. At least there is at least a rational to it now. Still might not happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,253 Posts
@VolvoUhu

The question becomes what is a comparable car. I have never leased a vehicle, but I assume the Op leased a brand new car.

So is comparable same make, model, features, and mileage? Or is comparable a car worth a similar value?

The second problem becomes, if Volvo finds him an identical car with all the same safety features and similar mileage, the car is still used. The op having obtained his vehicle new knows how the car was driven, what type of fuel was put into the car, and whether the mileage was City or Highway. Maybe op only drove Highway and the other car was driven exclusively City by some jerk that drove it hard and rough. Along with using the crappiest and cheapest fuel possible. Or maybe that replacemwnt car had a history of issues that needed fixed over the duration of those mileage, too.

So the Op would be taking a chance assuming a vehicle somebody else owned up until the mileage in which he acquired it as a replacement. While technically equitable, I wouldn't be happy with that solution. Not unless Volvo intends on throwing a 10-year / unlimited mile CPO warranty as a peace of mind . Because you just never know how that car is going to handle long term. Especially since the op intended to purchase the car at the end of the lease.

So this isn't a good situation no matter how you break it down. Though I did message the op and he thinks the dealer is trying to make the situation right. So we'll see what happens.
Yeah that's my understanding as well; leased a new car. As far as insurance, they'll restore to pre loss condition, which if totaled will be value at time of loss based on make, model, features, and mileage. It's essentially what's it worth for them to buy it. If it's more than the lease value at the time of loss, it seems VCFS keeps the balance and they come out ahead. If it's less, and the agreement has gap insurance, then VCFS doesn't lose out and won't seek the balance from OP. I speak from experience where I had a new car stolen that I had leased (first and only lease). At the time it was stolen it was a 3 month old BMW with 6500mi. It put me in initially a bind since as you know any used car off the lot has dramatic depreciation as it is driven away. Insurance goes by NADA book value and by that standard there was a significant shortfall that would have fallen to gap. BUT I was also in a unique position that in my case replacement value was far more fungible. They argued NADA and also that I "overpaid" for which they aren't responsible to cover. I stood my ground and challenged them to find me a 3mos BMW with 6500mi that I could buy with their initial offer to "make me whole". In the end they came back and offered me MSRP. I was floored, but the adjuster essentially relented saying that in my circumstance it was not possible to make me whole on a 3mos old car. It turned out to be more than I'd "paid". The bank (leaser) got covered, and I was able to keep the balance which I in turn used to BUY another new car.

In this case, the OP has the benefit of it having been caused fully by a 3rd party and perhaps thankfully it was the dealer. Anything above the dealer's insurance will be up to the dealership's management to offer and maintain good will with the customer. It does sound like they're quite remorseful for the incident and impact to their customer. They'll hopefully come up with an equitable and mutually agreeable solution for the OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFrantz
21 - 40 of 122 Posts
Top