IN 2012, GMC RECALLED THE 2007 ENVOY FOR A FAULTY SWITCH THAT WAS SHORTING OUT AND CAUSING FIRE ON THE PASSENGER DOOR. THERE WAS A DELAY BETWEEN THE TIME THE RECALL WAS ISSUED AND WHEN MY VEHICLE WAS UP FOR REPAIR DUE TO A BACK ORDER OF PARTS. IN MAY 2013, THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THE PARTS WERE IN AND THE LOCAL GMC DEALER REPAIRED THE SWITCH (12180) "PER SERVICE PROCEDURE" WHICH MEANT, A COATING WAS PUT ON THE DOOR SWITCH HOWEVER, THE CONSUMER WAS NOT MADE AWARE TO THE EXACT NATURE OF THESE "PROCEDURES." AT THE END OF JUNE 2013, THE DOOR HAD SHORTED OUT AND WAS AGAIN TAKEN IN TO THE GMC DEALER AND ACTUALLY REPLACED AFTER ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF 4 INDIVIDUALS WHO VISITED A GAS STATION AS THE LAST STOP. WHEN A CLAIM WAS OPENED WITH GM, THE CONSUMER WAS GIVEN A LOT OF "I UNDERSTAND" AND NO OTHER ANSWER COULD BE GIVEN EXCEPT FOR IT WAS STANDARD PROCEDURE TO "BAND-AID" THESE SWITCHES. FINALLY, THE GM REPRESENTATIVE SUPPLIED THE CONSUMER WITH THE EXCUSE THAT THE PART WAS NOT IN YET AND THAT WAS WHY IT WAS NOT FIXED IN THE FIRST PLACE. A POOR ATTEMPT TO RELIEVE THEMSELVES OF ANY LIABILITY. *TR