Chevrolet Offers Bolt Owners Money If They Waive the Right to Sue

chevrolet offers bolt owners money if they waive the right to sue


With the Chevrolet Bolt gradually losing its competitive edge as more all-electric vehicles take the field, and the car on the hook for a high-profile recall relating to battery fires, General Motors opted to reduce its price by six grand this year in a bid to make the 2023 model year more appetizing to consumers. Prior to the Biden administration pushing to renew EV tax credits as part of the "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" (basically a tweaked version of Build Back Better), GM had little hope of its vehicles benefiting from continued government incentives that it had already exceeded its sales quota for and needed a remedy. However the sudden price cut didn't sit well with customers who had just purchased a Bolt EV (or EUV) at the earlier price point, so the automaker attempted to cut them a semi-Faustian bargain.


Introduced in July, the assumption was that GM would offer simple cash rebates to last year's customers as a way to say it was sorry. But Bolt owners have started leaking to the press that the deal also includes a contract where beneficiaries would have to waive their right to sue General Motors (or any other involved company) in the event that the Bolt catches fire.


According to Jalopnik, those attempting to take advantage of the offer found themselves confronting a step in the process where they had to submit their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and were then required to agree to "forever waive and release all claims, damages, or causes of action" before continuing. So, if the car experiences a bout of thermal runaway and burns down your garage or some other catastrophic issue takes place, GM is legally protected.


"By nonetheless agreeing to this Release, I — both on my own behalf and on behalf of my heirs, agents, servants, beneficiaries, legal representatives, assigns, wards, executors, successors, and administrators — forever waive and release all claims, damages, or causes of action, either known or unknown, regardless of the legal or equitable theory, that I may have now or in the future arising out of or in any way relating to my Bolt vehicle(s), the battery defect, or the battery recalls, and including any claims or rights that I may have in connection with the class action, including any right to participate as a class member," explains the texts. "This release is in favor of and includes General Motors Company, General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, LG Chem, Ltd., LG Energy Solution, Ltd., LG Energy Solution Michigan Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics USA, Inc. as well as all of their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, servants, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, subsidiaries, parent companies, insurers, authorized dealers, suppliers, divisions, predecessors, successors, heirs, and assigns."


Jalopnik has a transcript of the entire agreement if you're interested, but the above basically tells you everything you need to know. Buy taking GM's money now, you're effectively making it and the battery supplier exempt from any legal action you might take later. That'd be a little more palatable if the automaker hadn't framed this in a way to appease owners that felt a little hoodwinked after Bolt prices came down by $6,000.


GM has extended the "deal" to vehicles from the 2020-2022 model years that were purchased last year. Leased models are not eligible and there appear to be some restrictions regarding trim levels, based on leaked dealer memos.


[Image: Tricky_Shark/Shutterstock]


Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 13 comments
  • Jkross22 Jkross22 4 days ago

    Maybe if GM and their partners did a better job on the front end, they wouldn't be in this pickle. Then again, if the queen had balls, she'd be the king.

  • Cprescott Cprescott 3 days ago

    We saved a company that cannot save itself!

  • Sgeffe Bronco looks with JLR “reliability!”What’s not to like?!
  • FreedMike Back in the '70s, the one thing keeping consumers from buying more Datsuns was styling - these guys were bringing over some of the ugliest product imaginable. Remember the F10? As hard as I try to blot that rolling aberration from my memory, it comes back. So the name change to Nissan made sense, and happened right as they started bringing over good-looking product (like the Maxima that will be featured in this series). They made a pretty clean break.
  • Flowerplough Liability - Autonomous vehicles must be programmed to make life-ending decisions, and who wants to risk that? Hit the moose or dive into the steep grassy ditch? Ram the sudden pile up that is occurring mere feet in front of the bumper or scan the oncoming lane and swing left? Ram the rogue machine that suddenly swung into my lane, head on, or hop up onto the sidewalk and maybe bump a pedestrian? With no driver involved, Ford/Volkswagen or GM or whomever will bear full responsibility and, in America, be ambulance-chaser sued into bankruptcy and extinction in well under a decade. Or maybe the yuge corporations will get special, good-faith, immunity laws, nation-wide? Yeah, that's the ticket.
  • FreedMike It's not that consumers wouldn't want this tech in theory - I think they would. Honestly, the idea of a car that can take over the truly tedious driving stuff that drives me bonkers - like sitting in traffic - appeals to me. But there's no way I'd put my property and my life in the hands of tech that's clearly not ready for prime time, and neither would the majority of other drivers. If they want this tech to sell, they need to get it right.
  • TitaniumZ Of course they are starting to "sour" on the idea. That's what happens when cars start to drive better than people. Humanpilots mostly suck and make bad decisions.
Next