SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

Dealer totaled my car... Negotiations for a new one....

11K views 155 replies 28 participants last post by  pop10 
#1 ·
A local volvo dealer was returning 2019 XC60 after the pickup/drop-off valet service, and 2 minutes from my house the driver hit a wooden electrical pole, metal electrical guide pole, speed sign - then crossed the road to go down a ditch and through a fence. Amazingly, the driver walked away without even a scratch. (GOD I LOVE VOLVOS!)

So first off, the dealership so far has been amazing. Really great customer service. Brought me a brand new xc60 the next morning, etc. However I'm now starting to talk about what's next, and the goal is to get into the XC90. The original plan was to buy out the XC60 lease at the end of our term ($34,782), hold the car for another year, then trade it in for an XC90 (financed). Obviously, that plan no longer works; but I'd love to get the groups advice on how to negotiate best into the XC90. This is the one on their lot that they have set aside for me while the insurance adjusters finalize the paperwork. I'm thinking if I can get the invoice number it would be a good starting point?
 
#2 ·
Wow, first time reading about a valet wrecking a customer car. I don't know what the invoice number is for this car but I would imagine that would be a pretty good discount in a time when these cars are probably selling for more, notwithstanding the fact that the dealer wrecked your other car!

I used to have my service work done at that dealer when I lived in the area 20 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ultrarunner511
#4 ·
A local volvo dealer was returning 2019 XC60 after the pickup/drop-off valet service, and 2 minutes from my house the driver hit a wooden electrical pole, metal electrical guide pole, speed sign - then crossed the road to go down a ditch and through a fence. Amazingly, the driver walked away without even a scratch. (GOD I LOVE VOLVOS!)

So first off, the dealership so far has been amazing. Really great customer service. Brought me a brand new xc60 the next morning, etc. However I'm now starting to talk about what's next, and the goal is to get into the XC90. The original plan was to buy out the XC60 lease at the end of our term ($34,782), hold the car for another year, then trade it in for an XC90 (financed). Obviously, that plan no longer works; but I'd love to get the groups advice on how to negotiate best into the XC90. This is the one on their lot that they have set aside for me while the insurance adjusters finalize the paperwork. I'm thinking if I can get the invoice number it would be a good starting point?
This is precisely why I love our dash cams, and why I got very defensive when the tech unplugged our dash cam. I'm very glad your dealer is treating you well. And you seem very patient with an otherwise s***y scenario. My 2021 is optioned almost exactly as the one you linked. Same colors in and out. You will be very happy with it if that's what you settle with.

I'm unsure how to price out a totaled leased car, and apply it to, maybe, a discount for that XC90?

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
 
#5 ·
Here are some rough numbers I put together...

XC60:
KBB: $45,000
Post Lease Purchase: $34,782
Delta = $10,218

Random ($1,355):
  • I just bought 4 brand new snow tires (19"- won't fit on XC90) @ $870
  • Volvo just put on new all-season tires @ $458

Questions:
  • What is the Invoice price of the XC90?
  • Should I ask for Invoice - 10,218 - 1,355
  • Should there be other things I should ask for on the discount? (volvo loyalty, etc etc etc). Whats the best I can do here?
 
#6 ·
Should there be other things I should ask for on the discount? (volvo loyalty, etc etc etc). Whats the best I can do here?
They totaled your car, I'd be asking for all of the above and hope that they realize a happy customer is more likely to be a repeat customer, even if it means them having to make a little less on the XC90.
 
#7 ·
Wow this really sucks!! But... the car was never yours to begin with. So really, they don't owe you anything but to cancel the current lease. A discount on a new one would be nice, but really, since you didn't own the collateral to begin with.. they really don't need to do anything to help out. If the insurance covers the loss, that is all you should expect from this, really.

sorry to be a downer.
 
#9 ·
I would debate that one considering if his lease terms allowed him to buy the car, all the equity he paid into it is now lost, because he no longer has the option of buying it for the agreed-upon terms.

Not to mention that Volvo dealer has left in -1 car, and hopefully he is not a one-car household
 
  • Like
Reactions: C30 in WI
#10 ·
I doubt they'll entertain giving the the equity your lease would have had. There is no way to recoup that at the dealership, they are not under obligation to provide it that I can see, and frankly it's just as well to lose someone as a customer at that point. The offset from MSRP to Invoice is just under 6%, so you're effectively asking for $15k in lost profit potential (cars are selling for MSRP or more right now). I just don't think that's a realistic expectation, of course, it doesn't cost anything to ask.

I would agree there isn't a legal obligation to cover that loss of equity (but I'm not an attorney). The lease contract allows you to buy it... so by that contract... you could still buy it, use the insurance to fix it up and then sell it... and it won't be worth as much because it will be reconstructed, but it's not in violation of the contract.

"Early Termination Because of Total Loss. If you suffer a total loss of the Vehicle,
you are in Default, the Lease terminates and you are obligated to notify the insurer
of the Vehicle and to coordinate with the insurer of the Vehicle to ensure payment
by the insurer of the Vehicle on the claim to us. If you have complied with all other
provisions of this Lease, and the Vehicle is declared a total loss by the insurer of
the Vehicle, you will owe us nothing more once we have received (1) all amounts
due under the Lease as of the date of total loss of the Vehicle, (2) an amount from
you equal to the amount of your deductible and any other subtractions from the
actual cash value under the insurance policy covering the Vehicle, and (3) insurance
proceeds from the insurance policy required under the Lease or the equivalent
amount of the value of the Vehicle. If the Vehicle is a total loss and the requirements
of this Section 36(a) are not satisfied, you will owe the Standard Early Termination
Charge, less the Turn-in Fee."

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.
 
#11 ·
I doubt they'll entertain giving the the equity your lease would have had. There is no way to recoup that at the dealership, they are not under obligation to provide it that I can see, and frankly it's just as well to lose someone as a customer at that point. The offset from MSRP to Invoice is just under 6%, so you're effectively asking for $15k in lost profit potential (cars are selling for MSRP or more right now). I just don't think that's a realistic expectation, of course, it doesn't cost anything to ask.
Ouch, that's pretty bad, even more so considering the loss occurred at the hands of the dealership - just cost this customer $10k.

I wonder what the fine print says in the valet agreement, if there is one.

I would talk to the dealership and then consult an attorney if that goes nowhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Vermonster
#13 ·
I doubt the full $10k is actual cash value equity for one, but lets pretend it is. I think the highest I've seen is $8k, so it might not be impossible in some markets.

If you take away the accident... if you wanted the car today you'd likely be paying MSRP (minus owner loyalty rebate of $500)... and getting $10k for you trade (using your numbers)...You would NOT get both a discount of invoice and a $10K bump in equity.

If you were to have bought it out and waited a year, you are getting to the point in time when we expect the market to be more normalized.... in a normal market, most leases are NOT worth more than their buyout, so you'd be at a wash there and maybe get $5k off the new one.

But under no situation would you get both the $10k equity and $5k off... those two figures don't exist at the same time. The $10k exists because of the current market, and is not something that anyone would realistically expect to stay once prices normalize. Asking for both is double dipping reality and I don't think a realistic ask, regardless of whos fault it is.

Certainly you could (and perhaps should) speak to an attorney to see if there any anything they can do. Certainly the dealer could just give you what your asking for and take the loss. Just from a common sense approach I don't see it as realistic or required.
 
#14 · (Edited)
The car was totaled in today's inflated market and not last year's or future tomorrow's normal market.

The big question is also how the insurance payout works. Depending upon the mileage and condition of the car, the dealer might get close to MSRP back for the totaled vehicle. As I assume this is a dealer Insurance claim and would not go under Ops Insurance due to him not totaling the car.

An attorney might have something to say about the dealer profiteering off the accident, and not at least returning any Equity the op had with in his car.

I guess it all breaks down to the contract. Worst case scenario, I am sure he could find an attorney for a free consultation to find out his rights.
 
#20 ·
Lol not gonna happen…no dealer is going to take a 5-figure loss on a deal. I’d hope for dead cost on new vehicle (invoice minus holdback minus cash if there’s any), buy rate on lease, and maybe throw in some accessories to sweeten things if needed
 
#21 ·
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
#23 · (Edited)
@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.
 
#40 ·
@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
#25 ·
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
#26 ·
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.
 
#35 ·
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!
 
#37 ·
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?
 
#36 ·
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
#38 ·
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.
 
#39 ·
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.
 
#41 ·
Here is another 2 cents worth,
First we need to decide who will pay and what.
The dealership may use their garage keepers liability insurance or what ever they have to cover this type of loss.
The dealership may say turn it into your insurance.
Either way the insurance company will normally pay out the value of the car at time of loss.
Your just paid repairs should be taken into account by the insurance company.
That being said, the dealership should step up and help out with your loss.
I would ask the dealership, did the Valet driver have a valid driver license.
If needed, A letter from an attorney will really get their attention epically if the letter goes to the dealership and Volvo cars of NA.
I have seen Volvo Corp employees, Sales Rep, Service Rep and/or Warranty Rep get involve and the dealership high ups to Owner will get involved.
Then it becomes how can we work this out.
If it does come to this, be thinking about what you want.
I have seen Volvo Corp pretty much tell the dealership we are giving away most of your profit to make this work.
Tell them that you want the 7yr 100K warranty if it goes this far.
Be nice, do not be a butt head.
Volvo wants you to stay in the product.
Volvo Corp did not cause any of this but I have seen them step up are really help out a customer.
 
#42 ·
The kicker in all this is that Volvo owns the car, and the insurance proceeds go to them, not the dealer. Giving away most of the dealer profit is radically different than what was proposed. But at any rate, I am going to bow out now until OP returns with what the dealer offered.
 
#43 ·
As someone that’s worked at a dealership in management for a long time your points they have a meet here are all valid but fall on deaf ears. People just think that because it’s a dealers fault somehow magically there now deserving of some special financial windfall. They are not.

The car does not belong to the customer nor does it belong to the dealership. And from a legal obligation standpoint this car accident is no different than any other random person that hit them on the street and totaled their car. If you got a smoking greatly steel in your car gets totaled you don’t somehow receive a new lease with the same terms. It happens all the time that people lease a car at some special program and then it’s totaled out and to lease another identical vehicle cost substantially more. That’s unfortunate for the customer but that’s just how it works. Trying to claim that the owner has to be made whole by insurance it’s true, and the owner is Volvo cars not the driver. The driver doesn’t get any special financial consideration.

People that have not been involved in the business or just often out of touch with reality. Do you think somehow the dealership now owes them some thing it’s nothing more than the dealerships prerogative of how they would like to treat a customer. They don’t really have any say in the settlement of the claim. Oh my friend had his car totaled by a technician and the service loaner agreement you sign stipulates that if the dealership employee tolls your car it’s on your own insurance and he had to make a claim and his insurance rates have gone up. People may not think that that’s fair but I’m sorry somethings in life just aren’t ideal. This is one of them.

I applaud you for trying to repeatedly interject common sense end of the conversation but like so many other topics on this board ignorance and entitlement seem to trump common sense.
 
#55 ·
Volvo farmer thanks for your detailed reply. I am not sure what the ‘loaner car agreement’ relates to, as the only time in Australia, I have only ever signed a ‘loaner car agreement’, when I am borrowing a car when my vehicle is being serviced. I have never signed an agreement which waives any liability to a dealer, when they are driving my vehicle, whilst under their care. It is obviously different law in the states, which is why I could not grasp your opinion, on liability.

I will offer one piece of advice to the OP. Regardless on any advice you receive, including my car own, take it as nice to know, but always get legal advice. Just because someone had a friend of a friend in the same scenario, it does not matter. Their lawyer may have missed something or a slight variation in scenario can mean the world of difference in the outcome. There are so many variables in law and it pays Seek professional advice.

Good luck OP and I hope the outcome is to your satisfaction.
 
#56 ·
Volvo farmer thanks for your detailed reply. I am not sure what the ‘loaner car agreement’ relates to, as the only time in Australia, I have only ever signed a ‘loaner car agreement’, when I am borrowing a car when my vehicle is being serviced. I have never signed an agreement which waives any liability to a dealer, when they are driving my vehicle, whilst under their care. It is obviously different law in the states, which is why I could not grasp your opinion, on liability.

I will offer one piece of advice to the OP. Regardless on any advice you receive, including my car own, take it as nice to know, but always get legal advice. Just because someone had a friend of a friend in the same scenario, it does not matter. Their lawyer may have missed something or a slight variation in scenario can mean the world of difference in the outcome. There are so many variables in law and it pays Seek professional advice.

Good luck OP and I hope the outcome is to your satisfaction.
I think you if you read the fine print when you sign the work order granting permission to the dealer to service AND drive your car it also states the car is still under your insurance policy. The vast majority of work orders also include this in the loaner car agreement, which states the loaner car is also under your insurance, and often the documents are combined. Certainly different countries do things in different ways, but I bet you'll find similar language in Australia and the USA. I know this because I have been assistant service manager/parts manager at both Volvo and Lexus franchises and have dealt numerous times with car accidents while working on someone's car (or customers crashing service loaners. I clearly remember one winter day 6 loaner cars were crashed in one afternoon!).
 
#63 ·
I’d be asking for a favorable purchase price on the XC90 and maybe some add ons at cost (polestar upgrade, roof rack, whatever).

The leased car did not belong to the OP. It was a lease and still owned by Volvo. The buy out price at the end of the lease is based on the expected depreciated value of the car at the end of the term, so there isn’t much in way of equity in the vehicle at any point in the lease (there’s obviously some, but not a huge number). Asking for all the money you paid into the lease is unreasonable as it was a sunk cost anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolvoUhu
#66 ·
Op did not own car, but he had a contract that allowed him to buy out the car at the end of the lease for a negotiated rate.

Volvo's valet, either negligibly or through fault of another driver caused the vehicle to be a total loss.

If fault of another driver, I'm sure Volvo would be far more willing to give favorable terms on another vehicle, as it can subrogate its losses.

If the valet was negligent, then it becomes what does contract say, can op and Volvo come to an amicable agreement, or should op consult a lawyer.

None of us know the answer as OP is awol.
 
#65 ·
The way this thread is so full of speculation without any real world updates from OP yet cracks me up. It's great to have varying takes on the situation for OP to weigh his options and consider advice, along with useful experience from others in the know, but tensions are running high for absolutely no reason lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: codeyf and chmax
#68 ·
Reality check. The OP will put a claim in with his insurance. He should get fair market value for his car less the deductible. the dealer should cover his deductible. His I surance co will go after the dealer or dealers insurance.

The check will probably be cut to the OP and Volvo. If the FMV is is more than today's buyout, the OP would get a check for that amount ($10,200?). Then the OP would take the check for the difference go to whatever dealer he wants and buy a car.

If his Volvo dealer jacks him around he can go down the block to the Chevy dealer, or around the block to the BMW dealer or even heaven forbid the Subaru dealer with the check for the difference.

The only issue I see is how much the check will be for. That's where the dealer has an ethical obligation to step in and fight for the highest value.
 
#73 ·
This debate about what OP should receive is full of conjecture. We do not know the terms of OP’s leasing arrangement which will govern the disposition of any excess funds/equity in the car. Depending upon the terms of the lease agreement, the equity will go to either the leasing company or OP as the lessee. Bottom line is that the insurance company (whether it be OP’s carrier or some other third party insurance carrier) will determine the ACV of the car and pay that out plus any fees required under state law. In Virginia, that would be the state sales tax and titling fees for the totaled car. Of course the insured can challenge the insurance carrier‘s valuation.
 
#79 ·
Had my car in for service today. Went and chatted with the store manager who has worked for Volvo exclusively for over 15 years. His wife’s S60 T8 is leased. I asked him what happens if it’s hit and totaled by another driver today?
The lessee’s insurance pays off the car based on its value to Volvo Finance. End of story. The lessee has no more “rights” to the car. Not to buy the car. Not to be paid some sort of equity from the car. He does not own it. If the other driver is at fault the insurance companies will fight it out on who pays what. Any “equity goes to the owner which is Volvo Finance. If the lessee put money down on the lease that money is gone, which is to Volvos benefit. This is the reason putting money down on a lease is risky
Remember the flip side - if the car is worth less than the payments that should have been owed to Volvo Finance includes GAP coverage in your contract. Equity or inequity is exclusively born by Volvo Finance.

The only thing is the dealership liability. Depends on the policy you agreed to when you signed the loaner car agreement or work order. Overwhelmingly your insurance is in effect, but store policy could be different. The accident is on your record and you rate likely increases.

It’s that simple. No grey areas. This is 100% from the mouth of someone that has leased literally thousands of Volvos snd managed a store. State law might have some subtle changes in how it works, but ultimately the lessee has very few “rights”. And that sucks for the lessee but that’s the way the game works
 
#80 ·
So the two people that I know who sold or traded in their leased cars in the last month were figments of my imagination. The car I leased in NY for 3 years and sold to a friend after 2 must not have happened, and the leased car I bought from my friend with 2 checks, 1 to him for the difference between FMV and the buyout and one to the leasing co were also figments.

Ask your expert to tell me how the scenarios I laid out works? The numbers don't add up. Maybe an insurance person knows.
 
#81 ·
I know I said I'd go away on this... but...

One is sold for cash = zero financed.
In this case the purchaser gets the value of the car per the policy

One is sold with a 48 month 0% loan for 100% of the cost.
Insurance pays the value per the policy to the lienholder. If there is a surplus the purchaser will get it, if there is a deficit, the purchaser owes it (cash or GAP)

One is leased for 48 months with zero down and a 50% residual.
Insurance pays the value per the policy. If there is a deficit, per the current Volvo contract, you pay the lease termination fee and walk away.

One is leased for 48 months with $10,000 down and the same 50% residual.
Putting money down on a lease is pretty stupid. I know that's what all the commercials advertise, but just don't do it. Put the money aside and keep control and pull some each month to make it the payment you want. Ask about security deposits instead. The security deposit would have paid the lease termination fee if the insurance policy value was less than the amount buyout, and you get the balance back. You don't get the $10k back... it's gone.


You and I wouldnt buy that repaired but once mangled used car, and Volvo would eat the loss in value by auctioning instead of CPOing it.
It should be noted that a car that was properly repaired could be a CPO car... but the wording you used, again felt like confusing the dealer with the manufacturer. Volvo does charge dealers $895 for the CPO, but there isn't going to be a ton of profit in that since it covers the 5 year unlimited warranty cost. Off lease cars go to auction, and in the first two iterations only Volvo dealers can buy them. Frankly most would pass on such a car, but nothing is preventing it from being CPO. Volvo will still not make as much at auction than otherwise, but it has nothing to do with CPO.

All these contracts were written (and signed by you the customers) in a time when the notion of thousands of dollars of equity was simply not realistic. No one has ever asked me what happens to the equity in their lease in an accident. I've certainly told people not to put much money down on leases due to both the risk and lack of control of your money, but the advertising in this country is horrible for all brands ($5k down, all special rebates, and not including any fees on base model cars with no options puts everyone in a bad and unrealistic starting position).
 
#82 · (Edited)
I know I said I'd go away on this... but...

One is leased for 48 months with zero down and a 50% residual.
Insurance pays the value per the policy. If there is a deficit, per the current Volvo contract, you pay the lease termination fee and walk away.

One is leased for 48 months with $10,000 down and the same 50% residual.
Putting money down on a lease is pretty stupid. I know that's what all the commercials advertise, but just don't do it. Put the money aside and keep control and pull some each month to make it the payment you want. Ask about security deposits instead. The security deposit would have paid the lease termination fee if the insurance policy value was less than the amount buyout, and you get the balance back. You don't get the $10k back... it's gone.
Agree with being underwater, disagree with excess.

If the car is worth 35,000 my insurance is going to cut a check for 35,000. If all that is owed is 20,000 the lessor doesn't get the extra if I dip into my savings, or IRA, or borrow 20,000 from my Uncle Guido for a few days, pay off the leasing company with the 20,000, and a few days later get a check for 35,000 from the insurance company.

Why is it different if I dont pay off the loan, take title for a moment, only to pass it to the insurance company, but, instead let the insurance company pay the leasing company off.

On the other hand, If all that is owed is 20,000, and the car is worth 35,000 but insurance offers 21,000 will the lessor fight for the extra 15,000? 15,000 they would not see if the car wasn't totalled and the lessee decided to buy it.

From a sales point, historically, the residual has been high to move the cars, so putting a lot down when there is GAP didnt make sense. This is one of the rare times when the residual, or current buyout is less than the FMV.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top