If this were the case GM could have more easily argued that it wasn't included in the warranty and therefore is not covered. That is not what they are arguing they are stating they are not responsible for issues caused by old GM.

EDITED TO ADD: The article doesn't say whether or not the cars were covered by warranty, and since they are from 2007/08 they could be out of warranty. But my statement still stands. If the cars are out of warranty then GM could easily and successfully argue the warranty has expired and no work can be covered because it is expired.

 

The bankruptcy was filed in 2009. There are still 'old' GM vehicles on the road covered by the 3/36k warranty.
The impression of the posts I'm reading above is that that 'new' GM walked away from anything built by 'old' GM (2009) and that doesn't jive with the facts.
If they had actually done that, I agree it would be outrageous.

As to whether 'new' GM is responsible for 'old' GM design, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability...
well, the judicial system will have to define what bankruptcy means in this case.

 

Problem is, when GM fails again, we'll just bail them out, again. Americans didnt want to buy their crappy products before, so they took our money by force. YAY!

But really, my wife had an 06 Equinox that had a LOT of major issues, we brought it to dealerships before the bailout/bankruptcy and after and all the dealerships told us to sod off. The car was still under warranty and was having major issues (long story and I dont care to go through every detail, but they were all warranty items). At the time, we were considering buying a new Tahoe and a CTS-V (yay for a new job, lol), but after seeing how badly we were treated to fix something that shouldnt have been wrong in the first place, and through any other brand would have been a no brainer to resolve, we decided GM could go to hell.
Ended up buying a new Lexus for the wife and she could not be happier. Had one "issue" with the Lexus, a nail was stuck in such a way that when the car was driving it sounded like nails on a chalkboard. Had no idea what was wrong at the time, but they flatbedded the car 40 miles to the dealership, gave us a loaner and diagnosed the "problem" with 0 questions.
Havent had my F150 too long, but so far, havent had any issues at all. Even still, my grandpa has had Fords for a VERY long time and any issues he has are resolved without problem (some of his issues were actually identical issues to what we had with the Equinox, so I knew it wasnt out of reason for a dealership to address the problem).
All companies have their issues, but the test of a good company is how they handle the issues. All my dealings with GM have been negative, I dont expect that every dealing will be positive, but I do expect a majority to be satisfactory.

 

Raoul--I understand that. The vehicle in the article was a 2008 vehicle, so those build in 2009 can be irrelevant to the article, if the one in the article isn't covered by warranty. If however the person purchased an extended warranty or bought late in the year then the warranty could still be in force. If it is in force and GM is refusing to honor it, there are issues. If they came out verbally and stated, after they filed bankruptcy, they would still honor any warranties, then that can be construed as a verbal contract and they can be held responsible for those expenditures, even if they are for vehicles built prior to the bankruptcy. Yes verbal contracts are binding, the problem has always been proving what was stated. In this case I don't think that will be an issue.

What makes me think the vehicle is still under warranty is the fact that GM is not arguing that the vehicle is out of warranty. It is arguing that they can not be held liable for the actions of the "old GM". As usual the article doesn't provide enough information to form any good opinions about the issue.

 

It had GM on the side, how much more of a warning do you need???

 

Sad thing is I did know better than to buy another GM product. The few I had in the past were junk too.

I had planned on getting a Fusion, but let my wife talk me into the POS G6. Didn't matter to her what I said, because I was biased toward Ford. She comes from generations of GM owners/employees and wouldn't stop nagging me. Unfortunately I didn't have specific examples of problems to show her in person to back me up. At least now I get to say "I told you so" whenever automotive conversations come up. Its fun to go to family parties, since my Ford is parked in a sea of Chevy cars and trucks.

Her cousin finally broke free from their grip and got a Focus, so now my truck won't be alone in the lot. She was stranded too many times with her Malibu and is fed up with GM service. It was about the same age as my G6 and had similar engine problems plus a few others. She also traded in her husband's Vue for an Escape.

 

You mean their Chevy's actually made it to the reunion?

My wife and her family were big GM fans, still kind of are, but thankfully my wife went through the hell with the Equinox and is fine with never buying a GM product again.

It's amazing how many people I talk to that wont buy GM for one reason or another, yet they're still in business. Most companies that produce crap end up dying out, as it should be.

I honestly think that the ONLY reason GM is "making money" right now is the Camaro. The truck segment may do well for them, but that alone didnt save their @$$3$ in the bailout, but once they brought out the Camaro, everyone flocked to them like flies to turds.