Ford Inspector for Warranty Repair-Update:Warranty Denied Claim Due to Off Road Racing

[RagmopInKona]

I’m going to bet this will be the funniest thing I read all day. Thank you for giving me something to laugh about.

Come join us at Motul Petit Le Mans The ten hour IMSA weatherTech Championship Finale is the 14th, but it started the 11th.
I'll be busy , but you'll see real race cars.

Sponsored

 

[Skye]

From my Ford ESP agreement:

Paragraph 7, not included here, uses the key phrase, "Failures caused by", and "Repairs caused by", multiple times, giving some examples of what would void the warranty. It's my interpretation the adjuster has to show a direct relationship between the aftermarket item and the failed component.

Paragraph 9 is of interest to any of us: keep good records of whatever you DIY. I suspect Ford has a like standard for the factory warranty we all receive when purchasing a vehicle.

Paragraph 13 explains an arbitration process.

9. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CARE OF THE VEHICLE: To obtain coverage or reimbursement under this Agreement, You must: (i) properly operate the Vehicle and (ii) provide proof of Scheduled Maintenance Services. Proof of Scheduled Maintenance Services includes maintenance records that show mileage, date of maintenance service, VIN, and the maintenance that was performed. Please review the Owner’s Guide for Your Scheduled Maintenance Service requirements that are provided to You at the time of vehicle purchase. If You perform Your own Scheduled Maintenance Services, You must maintain a log including date, mileage and description of each maintenance service and provide corresponding receipts for purchases of parts and fluids.

13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION & ARBITRATION: Either You or We may choose to have any dispute related to this Agreement or the Application decided by non-binding arbitration administered by the Better Business Bureau (BBB). You agree not to consolidate or group Your dispute with other arbitration or disputes concerning this Agreement or Application. You agree that You will not participate in any class arbitration concerning this Agreement or Application. We do not agree to class arbitration. To learn about or begin arbitration, or get a copy of the Arbitration Rules, You may contact BBB at 800-955-5100 or www.auto.bbb.org/extendedserviceplan. If there is a conflict between the Rules and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern. If You initiate the arbitration process, BBB will charge You an arbitration filing fee of $50.
You may employ an attorney to represent You in the arbitration, but an attorney is not required. We will not pay Your attorney fees if You use an attorney. This Agreement is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§1 et seq. The arbitration decision shall be in writing with a supporting opinion.

BBB at 800-955-5100

www.auto.bbb.org/extendedserviceplan

"BBB National Programs will make every effort to have the dispute resolved within 60 days from the date we receive your customer claim form and filing fee payment. If we determine that your dispute cannot reasonably fall within the dispute resolution and arbitration provision of the applicable contract, your filing fee will be returned."

The BBB site includes details on the process and what happens, to include the use of "technical experts", which either Ford, you and the BBB can use during the proceedings.

 

[RagmopInKona]

It's funny how a manufacturer makes a muscle sports car but the moment you use it for what it's designed for, warranty denied. They can't stand behind their work but advertise heavy about performance.

Get a lawyer or read up and learn how to file the lawsuit yourself but you need to sue

To be fair, Ford knows most get mothballed, almost never to turn a wheel in anger. only to roll into a cruise then roll bck in a trailer then garage. then when owner gets bored, roll across an auction block.

 

[passwords]

OP, I looked at my extended warranty this morning and it has the same terms that you cited earlier, so it does look like you have the Ford PremiumCARE plan. You are getting very good advice from @MikeR397 and @Tomster.

Going back to my earlier post, calling it a warranty, or a service plan, or an agreement is irrelevant - it is a contract, and it should be approached in that context. That means both parties must comply with the terms of the contract. It is also important to understand the bilateral nature of the contract since that will partially impact reasonable interpretation of contractual terms.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Section 7. WHAT IS NOT COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT:
(d) Repairs caused by (3) unreasonable use…
(d) Repairs caused by (6) losses due to negligence, including racing.

Section 3: DEFINITIONS: Unreasonable Use-not defined; Negligence-not defined; Racing-not defined.

The fact that “unreasonable use,” “negligence,” and “racing” are not defined in the contract is extremely important since those terms are the basis of the denial yet not set out in a manner to specifically deny track use. Meaning the “if your car even touches a track it’s not covered” statement from the lead inspector is complete and utter bullshit clearly intended to dissuade you from exercising your contractual rights.

As stated by several others already, using the car on track at a HPDE event is not “racing.” The GT350 was marketed and sold by Ford as the most track capable Mustang ever. It was never marketed as a race car - the GT4 and FP350S cars are race cars, sold on a bill of sale without any warranty. As such, track use of the most track capable (street legal) Mustang ever (when sold) would be considered reasonable. Your owners manual provides information on how to properly maintain your vehicle before and after track use, and it does not explicitly state all failures that occur during, or resulting from, track use are not covered by your manufacturer’s warranty. Again, track use is not “racing” and “unreasonable use” will be interpreted against the manufacturer’s intended use (i. e. the most track capable Mustang ever).

Now negligence is also an element for denial, and if the inspector has evidence of negligence that would be highlighted in the denial. Negligence was not listed in the denial so it’s safe to assume he did not pull any vehicle data that would support a negligence-based denial.

Get as much information as you can in writing, both from the Ford Motor Service Company and your dealer. Remind the lead inspector that it is his responsibility to ensure compliance with the terms of the contract, including proof that the failure was the result of “unreasonable use,” “negligence,” and/or “racing,” and that a cage, seats, and DOT street legal tires installed from the factory on a street legal performance vehicle (ZL1 1LE) does not represent a reasonable interpretation of the limitations vaguely expressed in Section 7.

Getting to the bilateral nature of the contract: Ford Motor Service Company chose to offer a service contract on the GT350. It had the ability to understand the nature of that particular car as engineered, marketed and sold by Ford, and it is assumed that information played a role in its contract pricing offered to and accepted by you when you signed the contract and paid the contract price. You may do well by reminding the lead inspector he may be getting out over his skis, and that while you appreciate his input you do not intend to waive your contractual rights.

One final item for your consideration: the denial basis is what would be viewed as “conclusory.” Denial of your claim must be based on evidence of unreasonable use or negligence on your part. The fact that you have a roll cage, aftermarket seats, and tires of a different brand and size than stock is an indication your car MAY HAVE BEEN used in a manner that violates the terms in Section 7(d). I recommend asking the lead inspector what objective information he has to support his conclusory determination. Record all conversations and get as much as you can in writing.

 

[WItoTX]

Tom, Mike, and passwords hit the nail on the head. Every effort should be made to avoid attorneys. This is the biggest issue here. How much is a transmission? How much do you value your time OP? And what are attorney fee's going to look like?

I have no idea how much time an attorney would spend on this, or what their rate looks like, but I see used Tremecs on Ebay for $4,000 (Give or take), or $5,000 on Ford Parts. If an attorney bills out at $400/hr (The attorneys I work with are far north of that), that means one attorney billing 10 hours (1 day), you've already bought a new transmission. Add some more $$$ for a clutch and the cooler/lines, but not even valuing OP's time, I just don't see coming out ahead.

I am not saying don't fight. But I would put every effort into solving it amicably without attorneys.

 

[Tomster]

I’m going to bet this will be the funniest thing I read all day. Thank you for giving me something to laugh about.

You just wasted 30 seconds of your life on an illiterate fool.

It's OK, I'm guilty of it too.

 

[Tomster]

Come join us at Motul Petit Le Mans The ten hour IMSA weatherTech Championship Finale is the 14th, but it started the 11th.
I'll be busy , but you'll see real race cars.

Oh, this is getting good. What is your name and where do we find you?

You mentioned "come join us". Is that you and your fellow employees selling hot dogs at the hot dog stand?

 

[mikedahammer]

Just pulled up the GT350 supplement. This is getting more ridiculous as I dig more. What it is going to come down to is the extended warranty an extension of the original warranty? If yes, it should be case closed. The supplement says that you are covered as it defines what racing is (FOR COMPETITION OR TIME). It also says under transmission that is capable of operating at high speeds and on track days.

 

[luc]

Time to lawyer up. A track designed car is not abused by taking it to a DE event any more than having a 8250 redline and using it on the road is. You didn’t go off roading in a field. Why did ford put brake ducting and 6 piston brakes and a big wing for aero on this car?

find a good lawyer willing to blow this up big and make his fee contingent.

R u serious?
Track driving is much, much harder on a car than street/road driving
Main reason being the amount of time spend at very high rpms
As for the legal avenues, you always have to weight the costs of the legal action against the potential monetary pay off and the possibility of not winning the case
And finding a attorney willing to take this case on a contingency basis is a pipe dream. Not enough potential pay off

 

[MikeR397]

Just pulled up the GT350 supplement. This is getting more ridiculous as I dig more. What it is going to come down to is the extended warranty an extension of the original warranty? If yes, it should be case closed. The supplement says that you are covered as it defines what racing is (FOR COMPETITION OR TIME). It also says under transmission that is capable of operating at high speeds and on track days.

No, the main issue still is your esp language itself, not wether it’s some form of identical extension off of manufacturer coverage and language (it isnt, as shown by multiple levels of esp coverage sold by a somewhat third party, and this is not a distracted argument you want to make to them bc the answer is no it isn’t). You should have received (email?) a copy of that when you bought it. You need to get that.

they said you went racing, have you told them “I have never raced with this car. I have done DE events”. In your professional opinion are you saying non-timed driver education events qualify as “racing” under our agreement. That puts him right on the spot to clarify his reasoning under the “racing” exclusion. I normally would not admit to DE events just for these incorrect complications, but given your car mods and status of this claim there is no reason to be dodgy on that fact now and use it to your advantage.

he’s not claiming any of your equipment caused the failure, just that it’s evidence of “racing” which may be true but you need to explain that it’s not, and ask him how he would define racing vs a de event.

 

[jmn444]

Racing, to me, inherently implies that there could be a winner. Every HPDE I've attended (or 99%) have always stated the only goals are fun, learning, and going home with driver and car in one piece. That's extremely different from racing, even if the car gets some of the same levels of the stress that it's marketed to be built for.

 

[MikeR397]

R u serious?
Track driving is much, much harder on a car than street/road driving
Main reason being the amount of time spend at very high rpms
As for the legal avenues, you always have to weight the costs of the legal action against the potential monetary pay off and the possibility of not winning the case
And finding a attorney willing to take this case on a contingency basis is a pipe dream. Not enough potential pay off

Of course track driving is harder on a car than street driving. Show me where I said otherwise? the claim isn’t being denied for “driving the car harder” , it’s being declined for “racing”. I said “track driving a track car is NOT abuse.” Now if you don’t know how to shift out of first gear and are banging off the limiter all session, sure that can be called abuse, but not running a proper track session in a track car.

I agree about finding a contingent attorney being difficult, which is also what I said and why I said to make sure to have things in writing to show this is more than a simple breach of contract and minimize the time the attorney needs to get up to speed and formulate claims.

what will likely happen in reality is an attorney will spend 2 hours to draft a simple demand letter stating the position and the esp will settle and agree on coverage to avoid arbitration and pricey ($2500 or so iirc) filing fees that they are on the hook for, agreement seems to say customer covers $50 only.

 

[luc]

No, the main issue still is your esp language itself, not wether it’s some form of identical extension off of manufacturer coverage and language (it isnt, as shown by multiple levels of esp coverage sold by a somewhat third party, and this is not a distracted argument you want to make to them bc the answer is no it isn’t). You should have received (email?) a copy of that when you bought it. You need to get that.

they said you went racing, have you told them “I have never raced with this car. I have done DE events”. In your professional opinion are you saying non-timed driver education events qualify as “racing” under our agreement. That puts him right on the spot to clarify his reasoning under the “racing” exclusion. I normally would not admit to DE events just for these incorrect complications, but given your car mods and status of this claim there is no reason to be dodgy on that fact now and use it to your advantage.

he’s not claiming any of your equipment caused the failure, just that it’s evidence of “racing” which may be true but you need to explain that it’s not, and ask him how he would define racing vs a de event.

With a good driver, the lap times would be the same in both racing and open track, therefore the “load” on the car is exactly the same
Only potential difference is that the length of a open track session is usually 20 minutes and a race, even a sprint race. Is at least 50% longer

 

[MikeR397]

With a good driver, the lap times would be the same in both racing and open track, therefore the “load” on the car is exactly the same
Only potential difference is that the length of a open track session is usually 20 minutes and a race, even a sprint race. Is at least 50% longer

You clearly don’t understand how a contract works, or for some reason are bringing up unrelated points? Nobody cares about lap times and loads on the car. The contract doesn’t exclude coverage for “too fast of lap times” or attempt to quantify acceptable loads on the car. The contract excludes “racing.” There is zero reason to argue how much difference in stress a car gets from racing vs a DE, it’s totally irrelevant. DE is not racing.

the contract does not say “racing or similar loads on the car”. If it did, your point should be considered. It doesn’t say that, it says “racing”. A de is not racing, no further argument needed.

I’ve asked to be shown this “abuse” term in the esp. I’ve not been shown it yet. As of now, the only reason under the contract being claimed is “racing.” Until “abuse” is a valid contractual counterclaim, there is no reason to even argue “tracking a car make to go to the track is not abuse.”

No reason muddy the issue with arguments on contract extension, lap times and stress “like” racing. De is not racing, end of story and customer wins unless there is some other exclusion that applies.

 

[mikedahammer]

ask him how he would define racing vs a de event.

He said taking it to the track is neglect and causal for immediate denial, period.
I have read the contract and it is the same as yours and the various other ones posted as well as the section I previously posted. All of the esp’s are the same.

The language he is citing is neglect and abuse and according to the company as soon as you enter a closed circuit regardless of why you were there and who else was there you will be denied any coverage. I know this isn’t anywhere in the contract and asked him to cite the paragraph or definitions — which he cannot.

I made it very clear I never operated the car beyond or outside the manufacturers settings and never participated in a high speed contest, Time trail, or any other competition and never raced the vehicle.

I told him hpde is drivers education and hpde specifically forbids racing or racing like applications and that the driving is educational and in a controlled environment. He said hpde is race school and he knows because he has participated in those events.

My next steps will get more info from the dealer, from the esp, and get ford involved to see what remedies we can discuss. I may not be able to get a supervisor from the esp side because the guy said he was the lead inspector and that no one at the esp will approve the claim or change his mind and he was very adamant about that. I am not sure if he has someone he reports to or if he is the end of the line. The organization is extremely small as hold times are brutal and you will get the same person multiple times when you call in. I also know they flag your account because when I called back the first level person said Hi let me see if I can find the person you need to talk to without even asking why I was calling. He also spent about 5 minutes reviewing my case notes and didn’t want to touch it.

Sponsored