'New GM' is Paying 'Old GM' Claims, Even Though They May Not Have To

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole

General Motors victims compensation fund is paying for injury claims older than the company’s 2009 bankruptcy and, in some cases, for injuries sustained by drivers who were drunk or weren’t wearing their seatbelts, according to the New York Times.

The newspaper reported the findings by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who was hired by the automaker to manage the company’s fund to pay for victims of its faulty ignition switch that killed 124 people.

According to the report, 128 claims — roughly one-third of the claims against the automaker — were for injuries before the company’s 2009 bankruptcy. GM fought successfully this year to protect itself from lawsuits against “Old GM.” In April, a judge protected “New GM” from many of those lawsuits.

Nonetheless, Feinberg noted that “New GM” was still paying many of the old claims with a “non adversarial” approach, according to the automaker.

“We faced the ignition switch issue with integrity, dignity and clear determination to do the right thing both in the short and long term,” GM spokesman James Cain told the New York Times.

Feinberg’s report also showed that many claims were paid after evidence had suggested that victims were unbelted, speeding or drunk. According to the report, 124 of the 399 eligible victims weren’t wearing a seatbelt, 151 were speeding and drug or alcohol abuse was found in 68 cases.

Aaron Cole
Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Comments
Join the conversation
10 of 35 comments
  • George B George B on Dec 14, 2015

    Another way to look at this is that New GM is deploying both a carrot and a stick to settle lawsuits quickly in private. They offer a settlement while being able to remind the opposing lawyers that New GM holds a strong legal position if this were to go to trial.

  • Duaney Duaney on Dec 14, 2015

    I'm still amazed that any people were killed due to this ignition switch problem. Over the years I've driven many (yes older and not in goood shape), vehicles and had the engine quit due to a fuel delivery, vapor lock, bad points, etc problem. I've always pulled off to the side of the road. I've never so much as scratched a fender due to this, let alone kill myself. I think if a driver is that incompetent as to crash a car when the engine dies, they shouldn't be driving.

    • See 2 previous
    • Redmondjp Redmondjp on Dec 15, 2015

      Duaney, I had the exact same reaction as you. I read a bunch of the accident descriptions that were included in that big report they released a few years ago, and it seemed a stretch to blame the ignition switch in many if not most of the given examples. If you drive off the road at high speed and slam into a tree without your seat belt on, airbag or not, you're probably going to die. In a vast majority of the cases in that report, the person killed was not wearing a seat belt - how is that GM's fault? I, as well, grew up driving 1960s and 70s vehicles and it was fairly common (as compared to today's cars) for something to conk out en-route and cause you to have to coast off to the side of the road (or to have to put the thing in neutral while still rolling down the road and attempt to restart it).

  • Kit4 Kit4 on Dec 14, 2015

    Government Motors loves to shove their history down our throats when it suits them, like the 1909 founding by Durant, how "American" they are when it suits them. Then hide behind the bankruptcy judge when their crap cars kill people. GM deserves to rot alongside the Enrons, Continental Airlines, and AT&Ts of the world.

  • Silence Silence on Dec 15, 2015

    Reason #937387529438572198357293457295872395872394871134863945762349872364 never to buy any GM carbage.

Next