Dear Unregistered, the permission changes should be complete, if you notice any issues with your access on the site please let us know and we will check into it.
Hey Unregistered it seems that you haven't posted a message in our forums yet. Please join in on the fun and post a message! Click on Forum, then click the name of the appropriate forum such as "Cayman Chat" and then click the New Thread icon (looks like a Cayman door and side grill). Enter your message in the message editor and press submit and you are on your way!
Dear Unregistered,
We've noticed that you are not yet a member of our Cayman Insiders group. This group provides a number of additional value-add services via this website for a very low annual fee. You can find out more about this group here:
Insider Announcement
You can join the Cayman Insiders Group here:
Insider Enrollment Form
We hope to see you "Inside" soon!
Cayman ComplaintsForum for issues with or complaints about the Cayman
Your Donation Will Be Used To Pay For our ever increasing bandwidth costs, our hosting Service, domain registration, software licensing fees, maintenance costs and product evaluations Only!
Please enter your donation amount above, and then click on the donate button below.
I know an attorney who is willing to pursue a class action case against Porsche for the design defect of the Cayman and Cayman S stemming from the trunk clunk and the inability of Porsche to fix it (leaving each dealership to deny they know of the problem followed by various attempts to fix it none of which are ideal). If interested, please reply to this post and or call my cell at 201-572-2251. To start, he is interested in possible plaintiffs who are resident of New Jersey, but this may expand depending on interest.
No problems with my car. I'd rather see Porsche's money and time going to other things then defending themselves on something like this. That is what warranties are for by the way.
No interest here. I haven't experienced the trunk clunk and if I did, I wouldn't sue Porsche over it. I'd go in to the dealership and ask them to fix it. If they didn't fix it the first time, I'd go in a second time to get them to fix it. No reason what so ever to sue Porsche.
Lawsuits are one of the many reasons owners manuals are an inch thick and prices are what they are. Manufacturers have to cover their a$$ since so many people like to sue now.
I am almost ashamed to be an attorney when I hear comments like that. My car doesn't have the problem and if it did I would take it in to have it fixed or do it myself using the article in our Articles section. You could always persue a lemon law claim for your particular car if they are unable to fix it - consult the lemon laws in your state. I'm not sure it would qualify as a defect of a magnitude enough to trip the lemon law, but again you need to check in your state.
A class action lawsuit doesn't seem like a good idea to me, and no I wouldn't participate.
The tech I talked to at Hendrick Porsche in Charlotte denies any knowledge of such a defect. He said that the only one he had ever heard of was caused by a loose black thumbscrew next to the latch.What BS I cannot believe that a car company that can produce the Cayman cannot come with a fix for something like this.
Hendrick Porsche
You deserve the best, shouldn't your Porsche? 1-888-839-4366, mention CaymanClub.Net for discount!
I am almost ashamed to be an attorney when I hear comments like that.
Ditto. Neither I nor the 3 other CS owners I hang around with have had any trunk clunk problem. Good luck on the class action. IF it ever sees the light of day, my prediction is a settlement in which any owner with the problem gets the car fixed for free (of course all Caymans are still under warranty), every owner gets a choice of a key fob, Porsche hat, or $15 off parts from a dealer, and the lawyer gets a 997TT.
Ditto. Neither I nor the 3 other CS owners I hang around with have had any trunk clunk problem. Good luck on the class action. IF it ever sees the light of day, my prediction is a settlement in which any owner with the problem gets the car fixed for free (of course all Caymans are still under warranty), every owner gets a choice of a key fob, Porsche hat, or $15 off parts from a dealer, and the lawyer gets a 997TT.
i agree with you and k man s also . why are we so quick to sue in this country ? aren't there more constructive ways to resolve this issue ?
I have this problem and live in PA. My dealer attempted to fix it at no cost to me, but did not remedy the problem. Taking the weight out (I believe) causes more resonance problems and would be more irritating than the occasional clunk. I'm not sure of the basis on which you could sue Porsche. It would come under the category of rattles and squeaks that the car companies have done a pretty good job of indemnifying themselves against. I have to say that since it doesn't render my car unsafe, and is an occasional problem more associated with the road than the car, I would not be inclined to join this class. If the threat of the suit makes Porsche stand up and engineer a fix, we would all say thank you of course. If my paint was peeling a la silver Ford paint (which they still seem to have a problem with) I'd be John Hancocking the thing. Good luck.
I too think this is a gross over-reaction. I had the clunk and rather than waste my time baffling the dealer, had my friend who's an independent shop Porsche technician perform the "Rainier fix" and all it cost me was $4 for the foam tape and dinner for my friend. That 1/2 hour of work has taken out 95% of the problem and is good enough for me.
__________________
Scott
2006 Cayman S
2008 MINI S
i agree with you and k man s also . why are we so quick to sue in this country ?
Unscrupulous unbridled desire to get something for nothing. To cheat. To get away with it.
from the Wall Street Journal, 2007-Mar-27, p.A18, by Lawrence J. Mcquillan and Hovannes Abramyan:
Quote:
The Tort Tax
Economists have long understood that America's tort system acts as a serious drag on our nation's economy. Although many excellent studies have been conducted, no single work has fully captured the true total costs, both static and dynamic, of excessive litigation.
The good news: We now have some reliable figures. The bad news: The costs are far higher than anyone imagined.
Based on our estimates, and applying the best available scholarly research, we believe America's tort system imposes a total cost on the U.S. economy of $865 billion per year. This constitutes an annual "tort tax" of $9,827 on a family of four. It is equivalent to the total annual output of all six New England states, or the yearly sales of the entire U.S. restaurant industry.
How does the legal system extract such an astounding amount from our economy? We applied the rent-seeking theory of transfers from economic science to pick up where past studies -- including the highly regarded Tillinghast-Towers Perrin study -- leave off. We began by examining the static costs of litigation -- including annual damage awards, plaintiff attorneys' fees, defense costs, administrative costs and deadweight costs from torts such as product liability cases, medical malpractice litigation and class action lawsuits. The annual static costs, $328 billion per year, are well in excess of previous Tillinghast estimates.
But $328 billion is only the beginning. After all, litigation doesn't just transfer wealth, it also changes behavior, and often in economically unproductive ways. Any true estimate of the costs of America's tort system must also include these dynamic costs of litigation -- the impact on research and development spending, the costs of defensive medicine and the related rise in health-care spending and reduced access to health care, and the loss of output from deaths due to excess liability.
Consider the impact of medical liability concerns on the health-care sector. It is a well documented fact that the fear of litigation prompts doctors to engage in expensive defensive medicine. PricewaterhouseCoopers calculates that medical liability concerns increase annual health care spending by $124 billion in 2006 dollars, which must be added to any comprehensive estimate of litigation costs.
At the margin, higher health-care costs also reduce access to care for patients. We estimate that the additional $124 billion in liability-based health care costs adds 3.4 million Americans to the rolls of the uninsured. Uninsured people are more likely to suffer from a number of diseases and serious or even fatal conditions. Economically, the result is that more Americans are absent from the workforce and their productivity declines -- a total loss of output we estimate to be $39 billion per year.
Excessive liability also hampers innovation. Ideally, product liability should induce companies to invest in safety-related improvements to products. But the ideal is not always the reality. As liability costs increase, companies respond by shifting funds from research and development into fighting litigation and withholding or withdrawing products from the market. Less R&D spending means fewer new products and less innovation.
Research by W. Kip Viscusi and Michael J. Moore suggests that 13 U.S. industries have tort costs that exceed this tipping point. Overall, we found that foregone R&D due to excessive liability results in lost sales of new products every year of over $367 billion.
An overly expensive liability system also increases the cost of many risk-reducing products and services, at the expense of human lives. A previous study we examined determined that the adoption of tort reforms over the past couple of decades has prevented more than 20,000 deaths. Our analysis goes further to estimate the human cost of a failure to enact reforms.
Based on data from previous studies, we determined that more than 77,000 people would have been alive today and contributing to the workforce, but are not because of a failure to enact comprehensive tort reforms in the states. The cost of foregone output from these lost workers is more than $7 billion each year.
What we're left with, then, are annual dynamic costs of $537 billion resulting from our litigation system. Add that to the static costs of $328 billion and you arrive at the total of over $865 billion per year.
In this study we do not venture to propose a specific litigation-reform agenda. But we do provide all who are concerned with this issue some hard numbers to work with. And if you're wondering who the victims are of a tort system out of control, the
