Pensacolian solves mystery which could cost General Motors it's reputation and a shitload of money

You may be aware that General Motors is in the news because it's now immersed in one of the biggest scandals in automotive history and one of the largest recalls in automotive history.

What you may not know is that it was a Pensacolian who is responsible for solving the mystery which is giving General Motors so much grief.
He's an engineer at McSwain Engineering in Pensacola.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/business/a-florida-engineer-unlocked-the-mystery-of-gms-ignition-flaw.html?_r=0

very cool

http://www.pnj.com/article/20140329/BUSINESS/303290022/For-Pensacola-s-sMcSwain-Engineering-success-is-saving-lives

Whodathunkit that people in our little backwater would be doing stuff like this.

It was a bargain only losing 10 billion tax dollars. We should reinvest our loses in obamacaid. Seagoat math is easy.

Interesting story. GM....awesome company   

I was watching a report about this on CNN this morning and someone mentioned that GM does not have any responsibility to pay damage claims on the cars which were produced during the period when GM was in bankruptcy proceedings. Some kind of legal technicality in the bankruptcy laws.
So the relatives of people who were killed or injured in those particular cars will be shut out of recovering damages.

That is not entirely true. If the plaintiff lawyers can show fraud, the claims will be valid. If GM intentionally hid the defect and people were harmed, the discharge in bankruptcy will not protect GM from those claims. It appears with the independent claims center they will try to do the right thing with most of the plaintiffs, but there will be plaintiffs who will take them to trial.

2seaoat wrote:That is not entirely true.  If the plaintiff lawyers can show fraud, the claims will be valid.  If GM intentionally hid the defect and people were harmed, the discharge in bankruptcy will not protect GM from those claims.  It appears with the independent claims center they will try to do the right thing with most of the plaintiffs, but there will be plaintiffs who will take them to trial.

GM bankruptcy terms may limit liability in ignition-related recall lawsuits

General Motors is facing an investigation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over its handling of a recall affecting roughly 1.6 million cars, but the automaker may have found a legal shield from possible future consumer lawsuits. The solution hinges on the old, pre-bankruptcy GM, and the new company that emerged afterward. While the name is the same, on paper they are technically different firms.

According to Automotive News, the company negotiated with state attorneys general and consumer groups during its restructuring to only carry product liability on faults with vehicles from after it left bankruptcy in 2009. If any owners want to sue GM for issues that took place before that time, they would have to take it up with the "old GM" in a bankruptcy court. So far, all attempts to sue the new company for pre-2009 faults have failed.

"It is true that new GM did not assume liability for claims arising from incidents or accidents occurring prior to July 2009," said GM spokesperson Greg Martin to Automotive News.

Because the vehicles affected by the recall were built between 2003 and 2007, covering only claims after 2009 limits the number of possible cases. The current total of incidents related to the ignition switch fault sits at 31 accidents and 13 deaths. The General hasn't revealed when these crashes occurred, but Automotive News claims to know of at least one fatal crash in a Chevrolet Cobalt in December of 2009 that was caused by the airbag not deploying. Even if the automaker is able to limit product liability lawsuits, it's still facing a possible fine from NHTSA that could be as high as $35 million, a new record in the industry.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/03/10/gm-bankruptcy-limits-recall-liability/

General Motors should have been allowed to file bankruptcy. It's reputation was ruined when it became Government Motors and sucked up tax payer money.

Sorry Bob, but fraud does not allow discharge of those claims. I am not saying that there has been fraud, simply that the bankruptcy court will allow those claims against the new corporation where fraud is proven. No claims have been successful because the full investigation of the cover up is just beginning. When the new President of GM testified, she cleverly set up the independent board to review claims. If your understanding of bankruptcy law was correct, why would they bother? Public relations.....hardly. They are trying to minimize their exposure if this case is fully discovered and fraud was committed. A fraud and cover up will not protect the new corporation. None of the denied claims have pled and proved fraud. The law is very clear.

General Motors should have been allowed to file bankruptcy. It's reputation was ruined when it became Government Motors and sucked up tax payer money.


You are a sophist. You can cut and paste, but you lack logical understanding of issues. First, GM filed a Chapter 11 in New York federal Court. I can go into the Pacer system and copy the case number, but why bother......you would not understand how a chapter 11 works. The 11 billion that the taxpayers did not get back from their debtor in possession loans which were exchanged for stock were a bargain for taxpayers who would have paid ten fold dealing with two million lost jobs, and a chain reaction which could have collapsed our financial institutions. Each year we subsidize loan guarantees to the banks too big to fail in the amount of 85 billion, and we give a 700 billion subsidy to special interests in farm subsidies, yet none of those involve the loss of two million jobs, nor is this loan to gm repeated each and every year where taxpayer money is squandered while American jobs are lost because we are giving these special interests money while our infrastructure decays and private employment plummets when we could be creating jobs. You must be drinking today.

A sophist is defined as one who uses captious reasoning.  Captious is defined as "a tendency to find fault or raise petty objections".  Your last post would be an example.
The term really does not apply to merely sharing the content of a news report which is all I did.
But yes I have been drinking.  By this time of day I have usually consumed about six to eight 12 ounce glasses of hot tea and today is no exception.

By the way,  I switched from all black tea to a mix of half black and half green tea a few years ago (I got caught up in that "green tea is healthy" craze). But now I'm back to all black tea again . That green shit is too weak for my taste.

By this time of day I have usually consumed about six to eight 12 ounce glasses of hot tea and today is no exception.


That explains when I am calling Mr. Markle a sophist, you think I was calling you a sophist. Your understanding of the law as demonstrated in your reading of the state statute regarding manslaughter is not sophistry.......it is simply confusion from entering into late night discussions after you have had too much to drink. This might apply to bankruptcy law also, but you are basically right.....the claims are barred if there is no fraud. No fraud has been discovered, so even a drunk blind squirrel can find an acorn when the moon is full.

My mistake. I didn't notice you were replying to markle. It's all the caffeine.