1999 Isuzu Amigo

MY 99 ISUZU AMIGO WAS IN A CRASH IN 6/03 WHEN A DRIVER TURNED LEFT AT AN INTERSECTION IN FRONT OF MY ISUZU. BRAKES WERE FORCIBLY APPLIED ON THE ISUZU, BUT IT DIDN'T STOP. A 16-MTH OLD IN THE TURNING CAR WAS FATALLY INJURED & LATER DIED. OTHERS WERE HURT & MY ISUZU WAS TOTALED. ISUZU SENT ME A NOTE 7/03 THAT STATED THE BRAKES REQUIRE LONGER THAN NORMAL STOPPING DISTANCE & SHOULD BE REPLACED. I RESEARCHED & FOUND ISUZU KNEW OF THE DEFECTIVE BRAKES IN 6/02, WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED THEY WERE UPGRADING THEM. NEITHER ISUZU NOR GE CAPITAL (THE FINANCING COMPANY) EVER NOTIFIED ME UNTIL THE 7/03 NOTE FROM ISUZU. INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THIS, AND THE RISK I MAY BE SUED BY THE OTHER CARS DRIVERGE & THEIR ATTORNEY IS DEMANDING I PAY $18M ON TOP OF $11M THEY ALREADY GOT FROM MY INSURER. GE IGNORES AN AGREEMENT WE REACHED IN 2002 WHENDUE TO DECEPTIVE SALES TACTICS BY ISUZUS SALESMANTHEY ACCEPTED A DEPOSIT STOLEN FROM ME BY THE SALESMAN & PAYMENTS I MADE UNDER DURESS AS PAYMENT IN FULL. THIS WAS REACHED WHEN GE LEARNED THE DEALERSHIP FIRED THE SALESMAN AFTER THEY INVESTIGATED AND CONFIRMED MY REPORT OF THE DECEPTIVE/FAKED CONTRACT. PER OUR AGREEMENT, GE WAS TO SEND ME THE TITLE & WAS TO REPORT THE CONTRACT PAID IN FULL TO CREDIT BUREAUS. GE REPORTED FULL PAYMENT TO THE BUREAUS, BUT NEVER SENT ME THE TITLE. BY KEEPING THE TITLE, GE WAS ABLE TO MISREPRESENT THEMSELVES AS LIENHOLDER & GOT MY INSURER TO PAY THEMINSTEAD OF ME$11M IN FUNDS & SALVAGE FOR MY ISUZU. AND NOW GE IS DEMANDING $18M FROM MEALL IN SPITE OF OUR 2002 AGREEMENT. I WROTE GE & AMERICAN ISUZU MOTORS ADVISING THAT THEIR NEGLIGENCE IN THE DEFECTIVE BRAKES KILLED A BABY & INJURED OTHERS. I ALSO REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT OF $11M, VEHICLE REPLACEMENT & DAMAGE COSTS. GE & ISUZU IGNORED MY LETTER. GE CONTINUES, WITH THEIR ATTORNEY, PURSUING ME FOR $18M. PLEASE RECALL 98/99 ISUZUS TO PREVENT MORE PEOPLE FROM BEING KILLED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF ISUZU & GE.

THE ABS LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON 6/24/2003. AFTER SHUTTING THE VEHICLE OFF A HUMMING NOISE WAS HEARD. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO STATED THAT VEHICLE WAS ON RECALL, BUT THE RECALL WAS DONE IS STAGES. THE CONSUMER WAS NOT TO BE NOTIFIED UNTIL AUGUST 2003. THE DEALER REQUIRED THE CONSUMER TO PAY FOR THE RECALL REPAIR.*AK