GM Warranty Tire Claim

[PartsPlant81]

LOL = Lack Of Leadership

[GM-gta]

Anyone who looked at it should know its not warranty. A cut in the side wall is not a defect.
That's like the ones who come in with with the lower air defector hanging off because they pulled too far forward into a snow bank, left it overnight so it freezes then when they back out in the morning it gets tore off.

[RBrown]

I hate to beat a dead horse..but..the dealership has everything in their favor and nothing in the customers favor.

Strike 1 : Sidewall DAMAGE isn't a coverable concern.Period.End of discussion.

Strike 2 : You accepted her concern as a defect in the tire, other than customer satisfaction, you shouldn't have.

Strike 3 : "Lawyer" ends ALL conversations. If she wants to not but a tire, but willing to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour, she has ended her customer status and began her kicked to the proverbial curb status.

Unless the G.M / owner wants this to be fixed, I would end it. If they WANT to fix it, your credibility could be in danger. If it goes that way, someone needs to tell the lady that the store went over abd above to address her concern, but, she or someone away from the store is at fault, which negates a warranty concern.

[PartsPlant81]

Not the greatest pic; but what do you think?

[Zep33]

looks like the last person the bitch sued stabbed her tire

[FixedManager]

From the cheap seats 2000 miles away even I can see that's an impact event. I know I'm repeating myself from my earlier post but with the rare exception of a belt separation, no sidewall damage is warrantable.

The service manager should've handled the denial of coverage before the transaction, and if he decided it was covered he should've handled himself like any other warranty transaction. Smile, pay the lady, tell her it's a one time occurrence, charge to service policy, and move on.