OnStar is facing a new wrongful death lawsuit that alleges the GM-owned subsidiary refused to provide critical geolocation information for an 80-year-old South Carolina woman during her kidnapping and subsequent murder.
Per a recent report from local NBC affiliate WMBF News, the estate of Mary Ann Elvington filed the wrongful death lawsuit on March 1st of this year. The lawsuit was filed against OnStar, as well as Dominique Brand, the latter of whom was convicted of Elvington’s kidnapping and murder.
Per Car Complaints, Brand kidnapped Elvington from her home in Horry County, South Carolina on March 28th, 2021. Brand forced Elvington into her 2012 Buick LaCrosse and demanded that she drive him to Waccamaw, North Carolina, then back to South Carolina. Elvington’s Buick LaCrosse was equipped with OnStar.
Reports indicate that Elvington’s family became concerned when it was discovered that her car was missing, prompting her son, Harold Elvington, to contact his mother. Ms. Elvington told her son that she was in her car, but could not provide her location or destination.
According to the lawsuit, Harold Elvington then contacted OnStar and said that his mother was in danger and needed immediate assistance, asking that OnStar provide either him or law enforcement with the vehicle location. OnStar allegedly refused, and instead placed a three-way call to Ms. Elvington’s car between Harold Elvington and his mother.
Ms. Elvington confirmed that she did not know where she was or where she was going, and refused to answer when asked if she would pull over and contact law enforcement. The call was then terminated. Ms. Elvington’s body was later found behind an abandoned grocery store in Marion County. Brand was convicted of kidnapping and murder in September of 2022 and is currently awaiting sentencing.
“Harold Elvington repeatedly contacted Defendant OnStar, alerted multiple agents of Defendant OnStar that Decedent was in danger, and requested Defendant provide the location of Decedent’s vehicle to him or law enforcement,” the lawsuit states. “Defendant OnStar refused these requests and took no further action to assist Decedent despite knowledge that Decedent was in danger and volunteering to assist Decedent.”
The lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for the County of Horry, State of South Carolina. The plaintiff is represented by Pierce, Sloan, Kennedy and Early LLC, and the Law Office of L. Morgan Martin.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM OnStar news, GM legal news, GM technology news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Unless there’s a court order or the person in question is a minor I don’t think OnStar or companies like it can be found liable.
OnStar has the ability for you to share location data with others. I suggest people setup that feature beforehand.
FCC requires any wireless or other communications provider to supply not only account information, but also all geo location information when there is an emergency. For law enforcement, all they have to do is send the FCC Exigent Circumstance Form, that is located in every 911 center (or should be), to the carriers emergency contact number for public safety request.
I am a retired public safety professional and used the FCC procedure many times without any delays.
I think in the case of OnStar AT&T is the communication provider. OnStar is just a service that uses its network. As others have said. Call the police FIRST. Otherwise, anyone can call OnStar with a reason to track a vehicle. I’m sure nothing can go wrong there.
It’s funny, the flew , how can u be getting so many thumbs down for just stating facts. We have def lost our way in this world
Why? Because it was a stupid answer that’s why?
Hope that helps you little mind!
It wasn’t a stupid answer its the truth. If not, anyone can call onstar and say so and so, then it could become a swatting case. Seeems you have a little mind and no common sense.
OnStar used to allow you to set up your account more conveniently however they’ve made it where you can only set up your account now via the car. As a result family members can’t reactivate service in this type of situation which should allow them to be held liable. If you have an OnStar account and have your VIN number and all information you should be able to set up your account via your computer. Especially in situations like this. Even if it requires you to pay for it, So be it! Instead GM is punishing you for not being a continuous subscriber! Which is BS considering the price has escalated so dramatically over the years and so many features have been removed. Even long-term planning for technology changing has been forgotten in what is a clear-cut case of planned obsolescence
I hope OnStar gets their ass handed to them over this event. Failure to provide the requested info to a unit of law enforcement is BS.
I just purchased a 2023 Yukon XL Denali Ultimate and was mandated to buy a 3 year subscription thereby propping up 20th Century technology.
Same here; a forced option I did not want and it does not work.
I have had it three months, great truck much improved over my 2021 Denali (I never used on star in it). Three times I have pressed the OnStar button on my 2023 to set it up and have failed. First the dealer tried to set it up and failed . Next time I tried they wanted me to name the hot spot and give them a password that I did not have, The third time the wanted my email address and corresponding password. I did not think it was smart to share my email password as they would have access to my email account.
It sounds like law enforcement wasn’t involved: it was her son who contacted OnStar.
But you were not obligated to buy a 2023 Yukon were you?.?
Hmm I am not impressed. We have on star. It is a shame that someone has to lose their life because On star was being a donkey! I hope the estate wins.
Regardless of policy – regardless of everything – it’s a terrible, terrible optic for OnStar.
If Onstar is found liable, it will be a horrible example of corporate greed. I receive at least one weekly email trying to get a subscription out of me. New ad campaign: “Victim of a crime? Worried about Life or Death? Count on us…for a monthly fee.” The optics are horrendous.
I think I will reserve judgement until more facts are known because reporting seems to lack a lot of truth these days.
My first OnStar was in my 2002 Chevy. I had no cell phone or GPS. In those circumstances
Onstar was pretty cool gizmo. But one I could live without. I still have that exact 2002 Chevy.
Fast forward to 2021, My brand new Chevy came with OnStar. No forced long term agreement.
Sigh, but now I have a cell phone, with 5g service and excellent features. OnStar became
even more irrelevent. To the point of a couple posts above, this part was insane, the ability to manage certain parts of OnStar were impossible using the internet, a computer, or a web browser.
I always ask this specific question now of many companies: can I do this online, or MUST I call? OnStars answer was , you must call them for certain aspects. Or push the button in car and talk to an OnStar human which is also mentioned in some posts. OnStar was a great idea, gone horribly wrong, and useless. I recall OnStar coming into existence when GM purchased Hughes satellite, an amazing combination of corporations, at the time. The tech and potential have been squandered.
Now, in this case, I do think any law enforcement request should have been done with priority. I thought vehicle tracking and law enforcement went hand in hand for things like auto theft or car jacking.
But when I read that they arranged a three way call first, I beleive it, I have had extremely poor 911 service , and other ER service from processes that simply interfere with saving lives.
Things could be better, but liability and the corporate mantra of do nothing are winning.
GMC, Cadillac and Buick now require Onstar purchase for new vehicles with Chevrolet being the only hold out not requiring it. Should GM decide to require Onstar on every vehicle they sell, they will lose not only my business, but probably thousands of others that feel the same.
Lots of hate toward OnStar. Maybe the guy should have actually called the police versus OnStar and let them handle it. But no, I need to demand OnStar give me my mothers location.
Reality is OnStar acted appropriately based on what’s explained in this article. Their policy is to not share information unless the request is coming from police and that doesn’t appear to have occurred here.
Maybe if he had called the police immediately, his mother would be alive. But now it’s easier to blame OnStar and expect millions in return.
Sadly, I must agree. I wouldn’t want some random person pretending to be my relative taking over my electronics.
Are you people all foolish? I get it is a privacy issue, but the son asked specifically if he not be given her location, than surely to God they would reach out to local Police authorities and give them the Geo location of the car. After all, if I call ON Star on my phone to report the car stolen, which I subscribe to vehicle location services, they will immediately disable the car thwarting would be thieves. So why not call the local authorities and warn them of this possible crime taking place. I have a daughter that travels to and from University, and I specifically subscribe to On Star for her safety. I sure as hell hope that this never happens to her or anyone else. GM must at least account for their decision at the time once all facts come out at a trial.
How does OnStar know it’s her son? That’s where the police get involved to verify the identity and the need. What if someone was looking for the car to hurt the person?
If you read the story carefully and concentrate while you’re awake, you’d have seen that On Star actually set up a three way call to the vehicle in question to speak to the elderly lady, with her son on the line. You don’t think that if she wasn’t in trouble or did not recognize the person identified by the operator as her son, she would have said so. Hence the call would have been immediately terminated. Again, concentrate while you’re awake and read the details.
Son as not the owner of the car or the registered account holder. If the request had come from the woman that owned the car that’s a different matter.
A very sad situation. Why didn’t the son call law enforcement? Once he wasn’t getting what he wanted from OnStar. Call the freaking police. Get then involved!
Tragic. Yes. But I can also see this “location reveal to any family member”’ actually CAUSING harm: when an abused partner is fleeing the abuser.
OnStar suddenly becomes RatsOn instead of RatsNo.
That makes sense, but then why not allow a local law enforcement officer to track down the car? Now an innocent woman is dead.
Law enforcement can use OnStar to track down a vehicle. There is no indication in the story the son called law enforcement first to go through that process. Law enforcement would want to validate the identity of the son to verify they are who they say they are and determine the merit of the request.
That’s not the job of someone sitting at a desk working on OnStar in a remote location.
Everyone with an iPhone and other family members need to have “Findme” set up. At anytime the wife and I use it to know the location you are at and one of our son. The son could have called his local or state law enforcement report the problem. They probably would have no problem with OnStar but that is in hindsight and he was sure he was doing the right thing.
Replace iPhone with any smartphone and you’re 100% correct.
OnStar IS CREEPY. I never activate it when I buy a new GM vehicle. Can they still identify my location?
Yes, they can. Just because you don’t use it, doesn’t mean they don’t use it to monitor the car. They can use it to monitor issues they might be having with your model of vehicle.
Granted I would be more worried about the smartphone in your pocket that’s with you all the time, than your car.
Don’t have a “smart”phone.
And there are many cases of OnStar recording private conversations in their vehicles, and then being used in a court of law against defendants. Now THAT is creepy.
This suit has no value or sense. Since the concern was something that requiresd law enforcement, that is who you work with first. But if there is something that should be considered is why is this site bothering posting stories that must be from law groups that are looking to spread dirt? When I get those mass mailings from those sources they go into the trash where they belong. This site has no reason to involve itself in this sort of mucking.
Spoken like a true GM On Star employee. Hope your relative is never in trouble.
When the woman stated she was in the car but didn’t know where she was or where she was going, isn’t that the time OnStar (or the son) should’ve contacted local authorities? OnStar would know her vehicle’s location and could’ve provided the information to local police to conduct a wellness check.
Too many opinions, not enough fact.
I think it interesting all you people complaining wants this information to this and that however you are using a computer that I gurantee 90% of you have no idea how much data you are giving companies just by being on this site. I bet a bunch of you also hava phone with lots of apps and give persmission to all those apps. If you say no you lying or your just using a flip phone that still can track you.
Its a sad situation all around. But you can’t just stop a car because you want to. The police should have been notiifed immediately and they could probably stopped it. Its a mistake on many levels here, but onstar is not fully at fault here. You people want privacy and with privacy you have to go the extra mile to get some things taken care even in the case of kidnapping. Onstar may now require a person who can call on your behalf to help with these situations.
Also GM has stopped forcing Onstar on most vehicles next year except the top end models.