• Jun 26, 2009
Commercial regarding GM and Chrysler's liability claims -- Click above to view the after the jump

A group called the Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler put together a commercial to run on Comcast throughout the weekend. The group numbers 460 people, 300 of whom are plaintiffs against GM, the rest against Chrysler, all of whom claim catastrophic injuries or the deaths of relations due to defective vehicles from the two companies.

The ad attacks the issue of New GM not being responsible for such liabilities. The claims, said to add up to about $1.25 billion for just the GM parties, would be addressed by the Old GM and lumped in with every other unsecured creditor's claims. That means that if the plaintiffs received anything at all, it wouldn't be much. GM is just following the government's orders -- it was the Administration that decreed post-bankruptcy Chrysler and GM won't be responsible for vehicles sold previous to bankruptcy.

GM's attorneys called Comcast, and Comcast explained pulling the ad by saying "We have temporarily stopped airing the ad while we conduct a review of the claims it makes." The commercial only asserts a few facts which could be easily checked, and makes a generalization about claims that won't be reported if people know nothing will come of them. Comcast hasn't given any timeline for that review, though. You can watch the ad after the jump and see for yourself.

[Source: Washington Post via TTAC]




I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 29 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      Jesus. Every day it seems AB makes a post engineered to bring out to twenty percenter teabagger/wingnut crazies.
      • 5 Years Ago
      This ad is pretty deceptive. It claims drivers will not be protected. When you hear the word "protection" in reference to vehicular safety, what do you think of? Do you think of a car's safety features or do you think of a huge cash payout. Most people think of the former, but the ad is actually refering to the latter. The saftey features of the cars and the protection they afford are not going away. Safety recalls will still be honored and new ones will occur to keep the owners of older GM and Chrysler cars protected. The only thing that is going away is the huge cash payouts, and that's what this group is REALLY concerned about, not anyone's safety. And regarding their last comment about safety defects not being reported, it would take a pretty rotten person to only report a serious safety concern if it meant he would get a cash reward.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Wow, this marks the first time a company airing advertising content actually thought to review said content for accuracy?

      Hey, let's start simple....how about all those infomercials?
      • 5 Years Ago
      In a way, I can understand the ruling in Chryslers case, as Chrysler is essentially being "bought out" by Fiat. Thus, they are not the same company.

      GM's case is not so straight forward. In GM's case, they warped the meaning of the 363 bankruptcy to allow themselves to get rid of what they want to get rid of................ but are essentially the same company. In other words, they just split themselves in 2. Good GM and Bad GM.

      Thus, the conflict becomes, when is GM not GM.

      Your 2009 Malibu has a defect, and it was built in 2009, before the BK........... and said defect causes grievous injury. You are SOL. Your neighbors 2009 Malibu is built after BK, and has same defect, which causes grievous injury to you or your family. You are golden, and get to sue.

      Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture??
      • 5 Years Ago
      It's unfortunate that some people with legitimate claims may be screwed over, not sure how many are frivolous, but that has to be a subset given that this is the USA.

      Such is the downside of the bankruptcies so many people wanted for GM and Chrysler. Same goes for certain retiree benefits. It's all about the money, and bankruptcy forgives you of certain debts and liabilities. It's nothing personal, just business and law.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Its surprising how 'surprised' people are pretending to be at the consequences of a bankruptcy. Especially some of those that were pushing bankruptcy like they knew better.

        About the only thing atypical in this bankruptcy is the degree to which the UAW retirees were protected. Otherwise enjoy what you advocated or hold your tongue next time.
        • 5 Years Ago
        This isn't money owed though, this is the right to sue the company for their defective products. It's the same company, they are still building the same cars. If GM knew what was coming 3 years ago they might as well have filled their airbags with Jiffy Pop popcorn because they were going to get off scott free from any liability anyway.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I still remember in the late 80-beginning 90's an old couple suing GM because of this:

      Thier son died because a drunk driver hit his pickup on the driver's side at 70 MPH. They claimed that the truck caught fire and then a TV station rigged a test to prove this was the case.


      Very few people have legitimate cases. Lawyers will loose big time. Even president Bush wanted to oversee all those ridiculous class action lawsuits.
      Asbestos alone cost 600million + to GM on an annual basis. They are now paying the grand grand grand sons of the first alleged victims.

      In all my 30 year in GM have I ever witnessed a real danger for the customers. The corporation has always honored those responsabilities, if they have ever occured. However, I have witnessed many gold diggers lawyers . When a citizen wins a lawsuit agaisnt McDonald because the coffee is too hot, then something is very wrong in the US society. This nonsesnse will all go with the old GM, along with all those profit hungry lawyers. It's about time. S.... them.

      • 5 Years Ago
      ^ @MOD and ANGRY, do you know the percentage of which cases are/were frivolous? How many people with 'legitimate' cases do you think were affected by the D3's bankruptcy immunity? Important thing is not how many frivolous cases there are, but how many legitimate claims there are and how they will not their day in court.

      Tyler, do you think people take murderers or rapists to civil court to profit? It's about punishing the person or company. That's what this is about. Not that I agree or disagree with it.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Research? RESEARCH??? I can easily settle this with Audi and it's sudden acceleration suits... If you don't realize your foot is on the accelerator, even though the engine is suddenly revving very high, and you put it into gear mowing down your child in the process... Guess what, it's your fault for being a moron, not Audi's for not holding your hand while you put the car in gear. While I am a fan of "shift locks" on automatics (and that's obviously standard equip across the board now), Audi was in no way liable for those accidents because of the absence of those locks.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I suggest you do some research,. none of these people are claiming anything so ridiculous as that. You know all those GM recalls, the many thousands of them, where they say in the NHTSA bulletin something like: ...has resulted in 4 reported injures or 2 fatal fires or 6 reported cases of loss of control? Well guess what, those numbers are people, people who deserve compensation.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Shame Comcast aren't so keen on ensuring the accuracy of the rest of the advertisements such as those we were subjected to from other special interest groups and political parties.
        • 5 Years Ago
        nice gta4 reference tyler haha
        • 5 Years Ago
        What's really worrying is you guys are serious when say dumb things like trying to link the banning of machine guns and being safe from terrorists.
        • 5 Years Ago
        .50 caliber. And what do you mean ban machine guns. They are so tightly regulated they are practically banned already.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Jeff Smeltzer used tax-payer money to buy a house in the Philippines, where little boys talk in lips and don't wear pants. He wants to ban .60 caliber machine guns and make America vulnerable to terrorists. Just like little boys are vulnerable to him. He says he supports family values, but his wife is a harlot and has had 5 abortions. Come election day, don't vote for Smeltzer.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Isn't it a little late to be bitching about the taxpayer bailout of GM and Chrysler>

      That deal is done.

      I don't like it either, and I'm not entirely sure that either one of them will ultimately be successful, but I'm not rooting for their failure.
      • 5 Years Ago
      What's with the censorship? You know the type of censorship that is a HUGE issue anytime any other country does it.....
      • 5 Years Ago
      I hate how they say GM & Chrysler have $57,000,000,000 of our money..when GM has 47 billion of it... but anyways, I think that is unfair they aren't reliable for it but this is the case in most bankrupcies. I think it just would be cheaper & better if GM replaced the 15xxx, and chrysler the 3,xxx cars that have "safety defects". but idk if that number is the number of cars that defective or what? I might be wrong..
      • 5 Years Ago
      You just know that there is someone involved who spent more money on this cause than they themselves were 'owed' by GM or Chrysler.

      What a malicious dummy. A fool and his money are soon parted, I suppose.
    • Load More Comments