[chris]

An August 28th 2010 crash near San Diego of a Lexus ES 350 sedan driven by the off-duty Highway Patrol officer, Mark Saylor resulted in tragedy.

Mr. Saylor was driving his wife, their 13-year-old daughter, and his brother-in-law on a family outing when their car "began to accelerate on its own" and sped out of control despite Saylor’s attempts "to apply the brakes and otherwise do everything possible to stop" the car.

The car reached speeds of up to 120 miles per hour before it struck another vehicle, plowed through a fence, hit a berm and flew through the air, then rolled several times into a field and burst into flames.

[kellyhound]

all got killed.
It was a loaner car and

According to Judge Sammartino’s recent order, a prior renter of the ES350 experienced an unintended-acceleration event and alerted a receptionist about the problem upon returning the vehicle.
However, the receptionist failed to properly document the complaint, the order says.

and

Eyewitnesses said the car’s wheels burst into flames as Saylor stood on the brakes in a desperate attempt to stop, the complaint said.

[chris]

Yea, his family sued the shit out Lexus, not sure if they sued the car rental place or not though.

[kellyhound]

Heirs of the accident victims sued several entities, including Lexus parent Toyota Motor Corp. and Bob Baker Lexus, in the San Diego County Superior Court.

The suit alleged the dealership breached a duty of care “regarding the maintenance, care and servicing” of the ES350 but made no mention of the receptionist’s failure to document the reported problem so the vehicle could be removed from the loaner fleet to be fixed.

In September 2009 Toyota recalled 3.8 million vehicles to replace a floor mat model that could jam the accelerator. The company later expanded the recall to address accelerator sticking that did not involve floor mats, in the so-called “sticky pedal” problem.

Toyota eventually settled the wrongful-death suit for $10 million in September 2010, but the negligence claims against Bob Baker Lexus were not included in the settlement, Judge Sammartino’s March order says.

3rd amendment’s a charm

According to the March 6 order, the insurance coverage for the Lexus Customer Convenience program was provided by Tokio Marine and included bodily injury coverage. The Tokio policy’s “completed operations” exclusion precluded coverage for claims arising from the dealer’s “work.”

Although the insurer said the wrongful-death suit did not allege a covered loss, Tokio offered to settle with the dealer for $90,000, the order says.

The dealer rejected the offer and sued Tokio in June 2011 in California federal court for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurer moved to dismiss the complaint and the nearly identical amended version, asserting the completed-operations exclusion barred coverage.

Judge Sammartino found both times that the wrongful-death allegations against the dealer included assertions it breached its duty of care with regard to the maintenance, care and servicing of the ES350. She gave the dealer one more chance to amend its complaint to allege that another theory of liability in the underlying suit is potentially covered.

The dealer amended its lawsuit for a second time March 20, adding that the underlying suit could potentially allege an alternative theory involving the receptionist’s negligence.

Judge Sammartino rejected Tokio’s third motion to dismiss, finding the receptionist’s failure to properly document the renter’s complaint did not constitute excluded “work.”

The judge acknowledged the decision was a close call but noted nothing in the dealer’s suit suggested that customers were required to pay for its loaner car service.

The service was a courtesy for customers who leave their cars at the dealer for maintenance, she said.

“Interpreted in the context of this business model, a layperson policyholder might reasonably interpret the exclusion’s language, specifically the term ‘work,’ to mean the work performed in the service or maintenance of the vehicles, and not a receptionist’s work in tracking customer complaints on loaner vehicles,” Judge Sammartino said.

As a result, she allowed the dealer’s suit to proceed.

[chris]

Nice. So they did sue everyone lol

[bbegovich]

damn that's gotta suck!

[Shakey]

I don't understand why he couldn't put it in neutral?

[jesse]

That was awful! As far as putting it in neutral, I don't know.....maybe wasn't thinking straight....

[deanmine]

Originally Posted by Shakey ↗

I don't understand why he couldn't put it in neutral?

or toss it in low gear and kill the trans.. whats wrong with just grinding along the edge of the railing like cops do with runners. anything other than jumping off the freeway. plus hes a cop.. and on a freeway.. i max out my truck all the time on the freeway.. just sad and strange...

[Shakey]

Originally Posted by deanmine ↗

or toss it in low gear and kill the trans.. whats wrong with just grinding along the edge of the railing like cops do with runners. anything other than jumping off the freeway. plus hes a cop.. and on a freeway.. i max out my truck all the time on the freeway.. just sad and strange...

How about turning it the fuck off?