A documented account
Story of Volvo's
Hypocrisy
Under a Certified by Volvo Service Contract purchased for $4,665, Gunther Volvo Cars Coconut Creek issued a loaner vehicle to my family. The firearm had been sitting in that loaner for 11 days — since the previous customer returned the car on December 31, 2025.
The same loaner was re-issued without any inspection.
After my 4-year-old autistic son had already used the vehicle twice, the dealership finally inspected it — approximately 108 minutes after I returned it — and discovered an unsecured firearm with 14 rounds of ammunition (left by the previous customer).
At 9:34 AM, a Coconut Creek Police Department officer removed the unsecured firearm from the loaner vehicle Watch clip. During Coconut Creek Police response, when officers asked whether loaner vehicles are inspected between customers, Service Manager Rennie Singh falsely answered "Yeah" Watch clip Another angle—despite four missed inspection opportunities that allowed the firearm to remain undetected across customer cycles—then speculated I was "more than likely" the owner Watch clip Another angle, causing police to investigate me (later was questioned via phone) while Singh's false inspection claim concealed the safety failure.
- Four missed opportunities to inspect the loaner and remove the gun across 11 days.
- False statements to law enforcement on performing vehicle inspection.
- Pointed police toward my innocent family, speculating with no factual basis that I was "more than likely" the firearm owner — causing a misdirected investigation Watch clip.
I formally reported the incident to Volvo Car USA: "Unsecured firearm in a loaner vehicle given to my family with an autistic child" under the Certified by Volvo Service Contract.
Volvo Car USA's attorneys at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP responded:
But then the disclaimer:
They even forwarded my complaint back to the same dealership and washed their hands of it.
I received this official Volvo mailing:
The same dealership. The same loaner fleet. The same "Certified by Volvo" promises.
Volvo's lawyers disclaimed all responsibility for the dealership on February 25. FOUR DAYS LATER, Volvo sent me right back to THE SAME DEALERSHIP on March 1.
I served Volvo Car USA, Volvo Car AB, and Volvo's senior leadership with seven documented questions exposing the contradiction between Volvo's own safety marketing and the legal position:
Three Sentences. Zero Answers:
"Volvo has previously set forth its position regarding the matters you have raised in our correspondence dated February 25, 2026. That letter fully states Volvo's position."
"Any further communications, if made, should be directed to counsel."
"Please understand, however, Volvo does not anticipate making any further substantive response regarding these matters."
— Colm Moran, Partner, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP · April 1, 2026 · 2:59 PM
This is Volvo's Hypocrisy
in Plain Sight
They market "Certified by Volvo" safety, "Service is part of staying safe," and complimentary courtesy vehicles — while their lawyers simultaneously declare they have zero control and zero responsibility for the very same dealership's loaner vehicles.
Three Events. One Conclusion.
Volvo's lawyers disclaim all dealer responsibility. "Volvo does not manage, direct, or control any dealership personnel."
Volvo sends a branded safety mailer to the same customer promoting the same dealership: "Service is part of staying safe."
Shown the contradiction, Volvo's lawyers are given a second opportunity to respond. They reconfirm the February 25 disclaimer — word for word — and decline to answer seven questions.
This is no longer an oversight. On April 1, with full knowledge of the contradiction, Volvo chose once again to disclaim any responsibility for "the trusted team at Gunther Volvo Cars Coconut Creek."
See below for more on Volvo's Hypocrisy ↓
On the Record — Updated April 1, 2026
Volvo Responded. Here's What They Said.
On March 30, 2026, Volvo Car USA was formally served a press inquiry with seven documented questions — contrasting Volvo's own safety marketing with the legal disclaimers issued by its outside counsel. The inquiry was sent directly to Volvo's CEO, CFO, General Counsel, Head of Communications, and outside counsel at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. A 10-day response window was provided.
Volvo's outside counsel responded on April 1, 2026 — two days later — with the following statement in full:
"Volvo has previously set forth its position regarding the matters you have raised in our correspondence dated February 25, 2026. That letter fully states Volvo's position."
"Any further communications, if made, should be directed to counsel. Please understand, however, Volvo does not anticipate making any further substantive response regarding these matters."
— Colm Moran, Partner · Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP · April 1, 2026
This response did not dispute a single documented fact. It did not challenge the four-day contradiction. It did not address any of the seven questions. It reconfirmed the February 25 disclaimer — after Volvo had already been shown the March 1 mailer sent to the same customer, promoting the same dealership, invoking the same safety promises.
Seven Questions. Three Sentences. Zero Answers.
The silence that followed has a name: confirmation.