Such a provision allowing them to avoid punitive penalties if found to be at fault. Part of me wonders how Chrysler could be allowed to include language that prevents such a thing for them.
Michael Oke, II 661-349-6221 Contents of this and all messages are intended for their designated recipient. On May 27, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Pete Theisen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/27/2012 05:53 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: >> I guess that reading does not mean comprehending. The article talks about >> avoiding punitive damages stemming from lawsuits concerning cars built by >> the 'old GM'. Nothing more and nothing less. Heck, it even mentions that >> Chrysler had just such language contained in their filing. > > Hi Michael, > > What about the part that says GM's agreement did not include such a > provision? > > "GM agreed to remain exposed to future product-liability suits involving > older cars and trucks after more than a dozen state attorneys general > protested its attempt to discard such liability. > > Chrysler eventually did the same, but spelled out in court documents > that it wouldn't be exposed to punitive damages in such cases. Unlike > Chrysler, GM's bankruptcy sale agreement doesn't outline such immunity." > >> Michael Oke, II >> 661-349-6221 >> >> Contents of this and all messages are intended for their designated >> recipient. >> >> On May 27, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Pete Theisen<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 05/27/2012 05:39 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: >>>> But I do and I'm not in the least concerned. You really need to read the >>>> article referenced. >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> I did read it, I posted it. I can't see the part you seem to be seeing. >>> >>>> On May 27, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Pete Theisen<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 05/27/2012 04:47 PM, Michael Oke, II wrote: >>>>>> Reading is fundamental Pete. They want to avoid punitive damages >>>>>> arising from any product liability case. Can't say that I blame them >>>>>> for looking for an out there. Juries have a long history o being >>>>>> stupid when it comes to such things. >>>>> >>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>> >>>>> I take it you do not have a late 2009 GM car with extended warranty? If >>>>> you did . . . >>>>> >>>>>> On May 27, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Pete Theisen<[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Warranty? Product liability? Don't be silly . . . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/05/16/wsj-gm-claims-immunity-for-its-old-cars/ >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pete >>>>> http://pete-theisen.com/ >>>>> http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ >>>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
