I saw this post and thought it may be of intrest to DML members that have
had paint problems with their truck.
Bob DeChance
Stockton Ca
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <nobody@pacificcoast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.dodge.trucks
Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 10:55 PM
Subject: I Won My "Peeling Paint" Lawsuit Against Chrysler Canada
>My year-long "peeling paint" dispute with Chrysler Canada is over.
>About two months ago, I got my truck back from a local shop where the
>entire body was stripped down to bare metal and repainted -- paid for
>entirely by Chrysler Canada. Last week, they repaid my court costs.
>The following article outlines my fight with them. The bottom line is
>-- they won’t take you seriously until you sue.
>
>My truck is a metallic silver-gray 1992 Dodge 3/4 ton 4X4 with the
>Cummins Diesel -- a limited edition with every option except sunroof
>and bucket seats. It has been used strictly for recreation -- never as
>a work vehicle. It has been well maintained -- washed and waxed on a
>regular basis. I’ve hauled an 8’ camper, towed a light boat trailer,
>a light utility trailer, and hauled the occasional load of firewood.
>The great majority of its 125,000 kilometers are highway kilometers.
>If not for the failing paint, this truck would still have appeared to
>be in "like new" condition.
>
>Over the past five years, I did manage to get a few minor marks on the
>body as follows:
>
>1) There were a number of small rock chips along the front rim of the
>hood. Only one penetrated the undercoat, exposing bare metal and
>causing a dime-sized dent 1 - 2 mm in depth. At most of the "chip
>sites", the colour coat was peeling away, exposing the primer.
>Estimators at local shops believed that most of these chips were due
>to the failing paint. Healthy paint would not have resulted in the
>inordinate number of chips. Similar chips were apparent in all body
>panels -- even where impact with rock chips was nil. There was no
>corresponding rock chip damage to the front bumper or grill work.
>
>2) On the cab roof, directly above the driver’s head, there was a
>scuff mark (approximately 10cm X 25cm) where the roof was chafed by an
>underground parking sign. This scuff was difficult to see, with
>slight marking only of the outer colour coat. There was no dent.
>
>3) On the passenger-side door, there was a slight dent perhaps 5 - 10
>mm deep and 6 - 7 cm in diameter just below the window. The was no
>paint damage at this dent.
>
>4) There were two tiny dents -- difficult to see -- (less than 5 cm
>in diameter -- 2 - 3 mm deep) along the top edge of the right front
>fender that appear to have been made by elbows of people working in
>the engine compartment. There was no paint damage at these, either.
>
>5) Along both sides of the box were numerous (several hundred) small
>"spots" of missing paint, with the primer exposed. Most of these were
>approximately the size of a pin head -- less than 2 or 3 mm in
>diameter. At several of them, more paint was easily scraped away when
>rubbed lightly with a fingernail. Experts examining the truck told me
>they have seen this type of paint failure in numerous Chrysler
>vehicles of this age and colour.
>
>I eventually asked the estimators from several body-shops for an
>estimate to repair this damage, caused by *anything other than failing
>paint*. Each estimate suggested approximately 30 minutes of work was
>required.
>
>I first noticed the failing paint while waxing the truck about 1 1/2
>years ago -- there was a strange wrinkling of the paint on the hood.
>Close examination with a magnifying glass revealed the paint was
>actually cracking and starting to come loose from the undercoat. A
>friend remarked that Chrysler was having a lot of problems with
>peeling paint -- I found copious information on this subject via the
>internet. Within a month or two, the paint was flaking and peeling,
>leaving palm sized areas of exposed primer. I took the truck to a
>local Chrysler dealer, and had it inspected by their service manager.
>
>
>All the warranty work since I purchased the truck new, had been done
>at Willie Dodge Chrysler here in Victoria, B.C. The Service Manager
>there is a hard guy to like -- pompous, officious, and humorless. He
>strutted around the truck, asking questions clearly intended to trick
>me into making admissions that the truck had not been properly
>maintained. "Done all the oil changes yourself, have you?" he asked
>(or words very close to that). He carefully examined all the rock
>chips along the hood, and other markings described above. Then after
>several seconds of ponderous, alleged thought, and with all the
>self-righteous piety of a TV evangelist, he announced that "we decline
>to assist due to the *considerable body damage*". This is very close
>to a verbatim quote. The "considerable body damage" phrase is exact
>-- I jotted it down after he left.
>
>I went back home and I got mad. The more I thought about it, the
>madder I got. I had clearly been "brushed off". I took his comments
>as a deep personal insult.
>
>Much information on the net suggests that I should have expected this.
>I began following the advice of people who have been down this road.
>First, I wrote detailed letters (including photographs) to the head
>offices of Chrysler in the USA and Canada. I eventually received a
>reply from Chrysler Canada -- a form letter with a total of four
>sentences, one of them stating, "Within warranty parameters, Chrysler
>Canada will not hesitate to assume the repair costs; however, after
>the warranty terms have been exceeded, charges must be accepted by the
>vehicle owner." Their letter did not refer to the subject matter of
>my letter. It was generic -- designed to respond to any complaint
>received from any of their valued clients.
>
>Next, I called an 800-number customer service line here in Canada, for
>Chrysler clients. It took several hours to get through. Finally, I
>got a representative, and explained the situation. She put me on
>hold, and called the Service Manager in Victoria. After several
>minutes, when she came back on-line, she repeated his exact phrase --
>there would be no further assistance due to the "considerable body
>damage" noted on the truck. I asked if my only recourse was to sue?
>The representative said that would be up to me, or something to that
>effect. End of conversation.
>
>So you can see what they were doing -- hoping that at this point, I’d
>simply give up and go away. I guess most people do. The thing that
>was really driving me in this whole affair, was the insufferable
>service manager at Willie Dodge Chrysler , and his lofty, arrogant,
>holier-than-thou attitude. I paid a visit to the local Court house
>and obtained a large envelope full of information about launching a
>lawsuit in a Canadian Small Claims Court.
>
>It’s easy and inexpensive -- the whole process cost less than $200
>(recoverable when you win). Anyone can do it, and you don’t need a
>lawyer. The clerk was extremely helpful -- I could tell that she had
>helped a lot of people through the process. She explained precisely
>how to do a company search, how much it would cost, how to serve the
>papers by registered mail, and so forth. I filed my suit.
>
>A week or so later, along came a letter from Chrysler Canada’s lawyer.
>In this letter, they again used the Willie Dodge Chrysler Service
>Manager’s precise phrase "considerable damage" to the affected panels,
>but allowed that "without admitting liability in any way" they may be
>willing to discuss negotiating the matter. The letter suggested I
>contact their western representative. This is what I’d asked for
>several months ago, in letters and telephone calls to their customer
>service number. You see how it works? They simply won’t talk to you,
>until you sue them.
>
>Finally, in their "official" response to my claim, sent off to small
>claims court, they said:
>
>1) they were not liable to assist in any way
>2) there was insinuation the damage may be due to exposure to the
>elements -- airborne fallout, chemicals, tree sap, insects, etc.
>3) a verbatim quote, "Chrysler states that all or some of the damage
>to the paint has been caused by misuse and damage to the Vehicle
>caused by the Claimant or others." Unquote.
>5) It concluded with a statement that I should immediately dismiss my
>claim, and repay Chrysler Canada their costs to date.
>
>If it was possible to piss me off even further, this letter had done
>it.
>
>I replied to their lawyer with a letter. In it, I described the
>"considerable damage" to the truck (as above), the evidence collected
>from local body shops and from the internet. I said based upon the
>tone of their counter-claim for costs, it would be a waste of time
>talking to Chrysler’s Vancouver representative. He would likely
>continue with predictable delaying tactics and insulting offers of
>partial assistance. I suggested that we immediately arrange a date to
>meet in small claims court where a judge could review the matter. I
>pointed out that to date, I had kept this matter private, but if it
>went to court, I would likely "go public", and get the media involved
>in some way.
>
>A week or so later, I received a call from Chrysler’s representative
>in Vancouver. I was prepared to immediately cut him off, and demand a
>court date. But he seemed quite conciliatory, saying that this matter
>should not have progressed this far, and that after reviewing my
>letter, he was keen to get it resolved. He suggested that I take the
>truck back to the service manager at Willie Dodge Chrysler . I guess
>I "exploded" at this suggestion. After calming me down, he asked me
>to go to the other dealer in town, Ensign Dodge Chrysler, giving me
>the name of the Service Manager there. I called him, made an
>appointment, and a few days later, went to see him.
>
>This guy was OK. His demeanor was business-like and neutral. I
>sensed he was prepared to call this either way -- in my favour if my
>version of the story was correct, or to tell me "no deal" if he
>decided I was a BS artist. I had myself "psyched-up" for a fairly
>intense confrontation -- it never came. He called a guy over from a
>local body shop to look at the truck. It took less than ten minutes
>for them to decide that it should be repainted under warranty. The
>estimator reckoned the extra cost (that I would be liable for) to fix
>the "considerable body damage" would be around fifty bucks. We set a
>date for it to go in.
>
>Ensign Dodge contract their body and paint work to a local Victoria
>shop -- Craftsman Collision. I’d made a decision, that I would not
>allow a Chrysler owned shop to do the work -- I simply didn’t trust
>them. So I checked out Craftsman a bit, and heard good things. I
>agreed to the deal. The truck went in on April 17 and was ready a
>week later. I paid a visit during the work, curious to see how they
>were doing it, and was delighted to find they had removed every piece
>of body trim except the windows to access the paint. They had even
>removed the truck’s box, so they could redo the paint on the back of
>the cab and the front of the box.
>
>The truck looks fantastic -- as good as new. The paint is guaranteed
>for as long as I continue to own the truck. I am an ultra happy
>camper! Again, my share of the cost, to fix the "considerable
>damage", was $50 plus tax.
>
>A few days after I got the truck back, I sent a letter off to Chrysler
>Canada’s lawyer, asking for a cheque for costs -- that is, what I’d
>paid to launch the action in Small Claim’s Court, the fee for the
>company search, registered mail, and that sort of thing. Four weeks
>went by, and I didn’t hear from them. So I went back to small claims
>court and asked to set a date for a hearing with a judge. By the end
>of that week, the letter was there from their lawyer, agreeing to pay
>court costs.
>
>I can’t understand why Chrysler treats their clients this way. To be
>fair to "Dale Carnegie", the service manager from Willie Dodge
>Chrysler , he was probably trained to behave like the "butthead" he
>was with me.
>
>I’m an ordinary working guy who laid out a very large pile of dough
>for this truck six years ago. It has been a damn good truck -- the
>best of perhaps six vehicles I’ve purchased brand new since 1970. But
>during the year this altercation evolved, I swore I would never own
>another Chrysler product in my life. I told a number of people in
>great detail about what total jerks Chrysler were being, and I know
>that I caused people to purchase vehicles made by other manufacturers,
>due to the way I was being treated, and due to general information
>(downloaded from the net) about Chrysler problems and tactics.
>
>Who are the "bad guys" in this story? First are the Chrysler
>executives responsible for trying to "brow-beat" the owners of problem
>vehicles into giving up on their claims. That is to say, telling them
>there is nothing more that can be done, when in fact, there is plenty
>that can be done. The next bad guy is the Service Manager from Willie
>Dodge Chrysler . Thanks to his insulting, bumbling, incompetence,
>this story has now been told all over the world via the internet. If
>he had simply leveled with me, and negotiated in some way, at that
>point I probably would have agreed to a 50/50 split for the work
>(something I’d suggested during our meeting).
>
>So did my conscience bother me as I pushed the "send" button to post
>this article? After all, Chrysler Canada paid for everything I asked
>for -- the truck looks like the day it "rolled off the showroom
>floor". A couple of strangers have spontaneously complimented me on
>my "new truck". No, it didn’t bother me a bit. They tried to cheat
>me out of this paint-job, and they are actively cheating others across
>North America out of theirs. Chrysler executives are bottom-feeders
>in the corporate pool.
>
>Go after the bastards -- you’ll probably win!
>
>Steve
>Victoria, B.C.
>
>[You’ll notice that my e-mail address above is
>"nobody@pacificcoast.net" to avoid spammers. I’ll respond by private
>e-mail to anyone who posts a reply to this.]
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:55 EDT