It's excessive if you look at it against their annual net income, sure, but I'm if you did the analysis on the net affect the faulty parts had on what owners would reasonably expect for future value, I'm sure it makes more sense. GM is also blaming ONE ENGINEER for this issue, so it's not like we're talking about a company that made an honest mistake--this was a problem that was actively ignored/swept under the rug for some time.
>this was a problem that was actively ignored/swept under the rug for some time. I agree and it is because of this that makes the whole thing justified. Yet, its almost impossible to know where a company/product will go in the future. If iPhones started exploding in people's pockets, I wouldn't feel the need to sue Apple because I couldnt resell my phone at the price I wanted. Granted, a faulty car against a cell phone is kind of apples to oranges, but the point is the same.
I'm not convinced that point is really the same, though. I believe the court would look at this in terms of what the customer would expect--and cars, more often than not, are resold before their usable life ends. Phones, not so much--that secondary market is more or less for people who would buy a new phone regardless of what value they got for their old one. Vehicle owners would be far more prohibited from purchasing a new vehicle without the ability to trade in their cars at a rate that fits a normal depreciation curve. I'm not an attorney so I'd be interested to hear a more educated perspective on this.