Baker Cadillac of Charleston

Baker Cadillac of Charleston responded

We appreciate you for taking the time to give our dealership such an excellent star rating. It helps us to know that we are meeting the needs of our customers. If there is anything else that we can do to help you with regard to your vehicle, please feel free to let us know. Sincerely, The Baker Buick GMC Cadillac Team

Baker Cadillac of Charleston responded

Mr. Kierpiec is a former employee of Baker whose service was involuntarily separated. While employed, he enjoyed the opportunity to have work performed on his vehicle at no, or at much discounted rates. Additionally, he likewise had the opportunity to enter assessments of work to be performed on his vehicle as well as conclusions as to services provided. Baker performed an oil change on Mr. Kierpiec’s vehicle following which the vehicle experienced low oil pressure. Baker then did another full service oil change on the vehicle approximately 7 days later. Following the subsequent oil change, Mr. Kierpiec drove the vehicle for almost 4 months and in excess of 4,000 miles, during which time, according to his testimony, he checked the oil level every second gas fill up, assuring adequate oil in the engine. Then, he experienced a tapping noise in the engine and took the car to a Subaru dealership which found no oil in the engine. This could not possibly be the result of the oil change conducted months earlier. Additionally, neither Mr. Kierpec nor the dealership to which he took the vehicle months after service at Baker were aware of a manufacturing issue with the engines of Subaru Imprezas, resulting in issues with oil pressure and the same tapping noise Mr. Kierpec allegedly experienced. These manufacturing issues generally lead to ultimate engine replacement – at the cost of Subaru. Baker originally believed and still believes that it was not responsible for any of the issues allegedly experienced by Mr. Kierpiec relative to his vehicle. Based upon that belief, and the knowledge of the automobile industry, Baker chose to challenge Mr. Kierpiec’s allegations. The review is correct – the jury in a small claims trial of the case awarded Mr. Kierpiec damages. While Baker very strongly disagrees with the evidence presented and the verdict reached, Baker understands and respects our judicial system and recognizes jurors frequently bring various backgrounds and perspectives with them to a trial. Baker regrets Mr. Kierpiec finds it necessary to voice his attitude in a public forum, particularly without revealing all of the facts. Nonetheless, Baker stands strong in its conviction that it did nothing wrong in the service of Mr. Kierpiec’s vehicle and that the damages alleged could not have occurred as described by Mr. Kierpiec. If given a second opportunity to address Mr. Kierpiec’s allegations, Baker would follow the same path.