Brian Wilcox

GABBY617 responded

I want to be clear that there were no omissions on my behalf. I did speak directly with GM about my options and, at no point, was I frustrated with the dealership itself. My intent was only to understand my rights regarding warranty coverage and possible buyback options. GM explained the process, and I accepted that information as part of due diligence. Following that, I began exploring trade-in options and was in the process of finalizing a potential deal. I was fully within my rights to seek clarity on these matters—especially given that a three-year-old vehicle, in mint condition, with only 17,000 miles, garage-kept most winters, and serviced exclusively by the dealer, was already undergoing an engine replacement. The size of the damage is irrelevant—the fact remains that damage occurred, and it should never have happened. Further, it is my legal right to decide where my vehicle is repaired. I made it clear to Long Cadillac that I preferred to use my husband’s body shop or another GM-certified repair facility. I should not have been pressured or forced to use only Long Cadillac’s repair services. To further support this, I obtained estimates from three GM-certified body shops. Each one valued the repair at nearly three times the amount Long Cadillac paid out. All three professionals agreed that the wheel had been poorly touched up. GM uses water-based paint, which is not designed for touch-ups, and the result is visibly obvious and substandard. At no point did I refuse to return the loaner vehicle. I returned it willingly once I felt assured of my own safety—something I was forced to consider as a female being intimidated and threatened by Mr. Barry. As additional proof, my vehicle is professionally washed and detailed regularly. Each service includes photographs documenting the car’s condition. I can affirm with certainty that none of the damage was present before it was in Long Cadillac’s care. The only apologies I have received came directly from GM, after they reviewed my case and the manner in which Mr. Barry treated me.

GABBY617 responded

I want to be clear that there were no omissions on my behalf. I did speak directly with GM about my options and, at no point, was I frustrated with the dealership itself. My intent was only to understand my rights regarding warranty coverage and possible buyback options. GM explained the process, and I accepted that information as part of due diligence. Following that, I began exploring trade-in options and was in the process of finalizing a potential deal. I was fully within my rights to seek clarity on these matters—especially given that a three-year-old vehicle, in mint condition, with only 17,000 miles, garage-kept most winters, and serviced exclusively by the dealer, was already undergoing an engine replacement. The size of the damage is irrelevant—the fact remains that damage occurred, and it should never have happened. Further, it is my legal right to decide where my vehicle is repaired. I made it clear to Long Cadillac that I preferred to use my husband’s body shop or another GM-certified repair facility. I should not have been pressured or forced to use only Long Cadillac’s repair services. To further support this, I obtained estimates from three GM-certified body shops. Each one valued the repair at nearly three times the amount Long Cadillac paid out. All three professionals agreed that the wheel had been poorly touched up. GM uses water-based paint, which is not designed for touch-ups, and the result is visibly obvious and substandard. At no point did I refuse to return the loaner vehicle. I returned it willingly once I felt assured of my own safety—something I was forced to consider as a female being intimidated and threatened by Mr. Barry. As additional proof, my vehicle is professionally washed and detailed regularly. Each service includes photographs documenting the car’s condition. I can affirm with certainty that none of the damage was present before it was in Long Cadillac’s care. The only apologies I have received came directly from GM, after they reviewed my case and the manner in which Mr. Barry treated me.