MikeR397
Well-Known Member
Your wrong.As much that i want the op to winn, i have serious doubts because the extended warranty is with an aftermarket company that had his own verbiage in the contract that was signed by the op
It is therefore a contractual agreement and all the stuff about how ford advertised the car is pretty much irrelevant
Imagine that you buy a dual toaster from the “ perfect toast company “ and that all the advertising pictures show 2 toast in it
After the factory warranty expires you buy an aftermarket warranty that state that you can only do 1 toast at the time
You still do 2 toast at the time, your toaster fail, you file a claim , explain the situation, doing 2 toasts at the time, all the manufacturer advertising with 2 toasts, etc your claim is denied because you didn’t respected the terms of the agreement
Hopefully I’m wrong
Cool toaster story and all, but I still think it’s silly how people are focusing on the subsidiary situation. Before that even becomes relevant, it needs to be found he committed an exclusionary action that the actual contract defines. The contract says “racing” is excluded and OP didn’t register in a racing event. Therefore the actual contract exclusion was not triggered and coverage still exists. If he is found to have violated some ESP language, then you can get in a broader and more complicated argument for coverage about subsidiaries and “should have known” and “reasonable interpretation,” but that’s not the first decision the arbitrator is going to make and I doubt will come up at all.
That’s all I’ll say on the matter, we’ll have an answer soon enough.
Sponsored