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

[matthewr87]

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.

That's why I suggested going through the Virginia Attorney General customer protection division. It is free and Ford will be obligated to respond to the letter they are issued.

Sponsored

 

[MikeR397]

He said taking it to the track is neglect and causal for immediate denial, period.

If he said this, then you already won. Neglect is an omission of a duty. You can't "neglect" a car by actively doing something with it, ie taking it to a track day.

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.

Ok, good. Here you said they stated clause 7d states they can deny for "neglect and abuse" . That's not what 7d says, it address loss of lubricants. You quoted 7e before, so I will presume you or he meant that. We've already discussed this...tell him please show me where in 7e it says "neglect or abuse"

I had a 40 minute conversation with the lead inspector at Ford Lincoln ESP. He said that I do not have a warranty. I have an extended service contract. That a warranty may cover track use but the extended service contract does not. He informed me that clause 7d states that they can deny a claim for neglect and abuse.

7d does not mention Neglect or Abuse.

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.

This is why he is committing fraud, and this is not a simple breach of contract. It's bad faith.

Again, what language? It's not 7d as you posted before. 7e, which mentions "racing" BUT WHERE DOES SECTION 7E SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "NEGLECT AND ABUSE." WHERE IN THIS CONTRACT AT ALL DOES IT MENTION NEGLECT OR ABUSE AT ALL??? All the contract mentions is racing. A DE is not racing.

This is what he's doing: Inspector: Driving your car on track makes it dirty and the second you make your car dirty you will be denied coverage on all claims. That's not an argument based in contractual or legal fact any more than "neglect and abuse"

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.

OMG, HPDE is not race school. Here are the first three results from googling "is a de event racing"...

Porsche Club of America: https://mediaassets.pca.org/docs/fo...umstandards-national-hpde-committee-final.pdf -- Driver Education (a.k.a. Drivers Ed, HPDE or DE) is an instructional speed event which is characterized by continuous lap driving with passing to be permitted as allowed by these rules. PCA DRIVER EDUCATION IS NOT RACING. There shall be no official timing as the event is intended as instructional only, with no competition. There are no award points assigned and no trophies associated with DE events. While non-competitive, safety equipment is still required as outlined in these rules.

https://lsrpca.com/hpde/hpde-what-is-hpde/
What is HPDE?
High Performance Drivers Education (HPDE) or more commonly known as Drivers Education (DE) events, are opportunities for you to drive your car in a safe, controlled environment in a track setting. These are NOT racing events.

https://www.highdesertpca.org/high-performance-driving-hpde-or-de/

High Performance Driver Education (“HPDE” or “DE”)


Background
These events are NOT racing, preparation for racing, or competition events.


------


I don't care if your inspector steam rolled the pavement at your local event. Him going to DE events doesn't matter and his WRONG that it's "race school." Also, ask him "Please show me where in the contract my coverage is voided if I go to "race school" anyway? It says "racing" not "race school." Even if someone legitimate (they don't) called DE "race school" , the contract DOESN"T EXCLUDE race school. It excludes racing.

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.

Might consider trying email, even if it's with the same guy. I REALLY REALLY REALLY want to see him deny you in writing for items that are not excluded under the contact. They talk a tough talk, but the tune changes when they have to put it in writing unless they are both fraudulent and incompetent, but that's what you want in writing.

Yes, you need to get Ford involved in this as well.

 

[jmn444]

all esp are not identical, I have a 2019 version of the contract and it differs slightly from the 2017 version posted earlier... more clearly considering racing to be a form of negligence. I still agree that hpde is not racing though.

 

[MikeR397]

Keep it simple when you talk to Ford AND file relevant complaints:

1. The transmission in my car has failed.

2. My ESP inspector has incorrectly denied coverage on my claim. He has not been able to offer one single reason under my contract that states my claim is invalid. He's only mentioned that safety equipment visible in my car lead him to believe I raced my car.

3. I have never raced my car nor participated in any timed event. The Inspector is wrong and has provided no evidence that I have ever raced or been timed in my car.

4. Optional but might help clarify since they'll know anyway: I have participated in a DE event with my vehicle, but that is not racing and was not timed. This is not grounds to deny my otherwise covered claim.

 

[MikeR397]

all esp are not identical, I have a 2019 version of the contract and it differs slightly from the 2017 version posted earlier... more clearly considering racing to be a form of negligence. I still agree that hpde is not racing though.

Looks like they changed:

2017 Version: ..., or losses due to negligence, racing or....
2019 Version: ..., losses due to negligence, including racing...


Materially this changes nothing. Negligence and racing were excluded in 2017, they are excluded in 2019. Attending a DE track event in a track car still isn't negligence or racing.

 

[jmn444]

agreed. just was sharing the wording change

 

[passwords]

OP, Mike is giving you really solid input. I don’t disagree with him on any points he’s made so far, including the rebuttals to certain other posts. I just wish I had more time to chime in.

 

[passwords]

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.

I’ll add one clarifying element here. Like Mike said in a later post, you need to focus on the ESP contract, not whether it’s an extension of the original manufacturer’s warranty. However, the term “unreasonable use” is not defined in the ESP contract and as such, what is considered reasonable use will be measured against (interpreted to mean) the original intended use of the vehicle, which includes track use (track use is not “racing”). So the original warranty, owner’s manual content, marketing material, and other publicly available information will be what is used to define the term “unreasonable use.” This means that if track use is considered reasonable for the specific vehicle for the manufacturer’s warranty purposes, and the ESP does not subsequently exclude track use, then track use for a HPDE event would not be considered “unreasonable use” in the context of the ESP contract.

This is an important distinction to make.

 

[jmn444]

speaking of marketing materials, may want to print this for them lol.....

https://www.ford.com/performance/gt350/

zero chance they can claim hpde is unreasonable with the way that page is worded... they literally give us free hpde to learn how to get the most out of the car.

 

[Kachow]

Keep it simple when you talk to Ford AND file relevant complaints:

1. The transmission in my car has failed.

2. My ESP inspector has incorrectly denied coverage on my claim. He has not been able to offer one single reason under my contract that states my claim is invalid. He's only mentioned that safety equipment visible in my car lead him to believe I raced my car.

3. I have never raced my car nor participated in any timed event. The Inspector is wrong and has provided no evidence that I have ever raced or been timed in my car.

4. Optional but might help clarify since they'll know anyway: I have participated in a DE event with my vehicle, but that is not racing and was not timed. This is not grounds to deny my otherwise covered claim.

This is the correct response. Start communicating via email so there is a digital trail. Be civil, and calm. I would get your snippett tool warmed up - cite verbiage from your ESP and then correlating verbiage from marketing material and our supplement.

 

[mikedahammer]

I am trying to get more info but it appears the ESP has changed their reasoning. So instead of saying off road racing they are now saying the statement below. Before everyone goes off, I have asked for the pictures of the clutch, release of the audio tape as I never said racing school; the lead inspector said HPDE is race school -- which I corrected him. He actually was snarky about HPDE, supercar 3rs and few other items which we don't need to get into. I don't think I will get any of this info from the dealer. The warranty side said legally they cannot give it to me.

I also asked the dealer why the change of position? If the clutch caused the damage why didn't the inspector say that and why didn't he include that in the original report? It was only after a concern was raised did they try and change the narrative. These will be questions probably left unanswered. I am going to request a top manager from ESP and set up a case with Ford. If anyone has done this then you know you better have 6 months of patience.

As a side note, there is no way the clutch was abused. The dealer said the clutch was fine when I spoke to them. The dealer is basically staying out of it at this point. They are taking the position that they can't do anything to sway or change the ESP position (i.e. not my problem).

 

[MAGS1]

So the original warranty, owner’s manual content, marketing material, and other publicly available information will be what is used to define the term “unreasonable use.”

I just read my ESP (which may be different than yours and OP’s) and the only references to the original manufacturer warranty is regarding timing (when coverage begins and ends). There is no language that I see that says the ESP is an extension of the factory warranty, it is its own agreement of coverage. So, you could argue (and I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice), that when the factory warranty expires, the definitions therein are also expired and the definitions in the ESP take over. There might be some case law out there that debunks my argument but I would argue that you cannot refer back to the original warranty if it has expired and there is a new agreement in place.. Just my $0.02, hope it all works out for OP.

 

[Kachow]

I am trying to get more info but it appears the ESP has changed their reasoning. So instead of saying off road racing they are now saying the statement below. Before everyone goes off, I have asked for the pictures of the clutch, release of the audio tape as I never said racing school; the lead inspector said HPDE is race school -- which I corrected him. He actually was snarky about HPDE, supercar 3rs and few other items which we don't need to get into. I don't think I will get any of this info from the dealer. The warranty side said legally they cannot give it to me.

I also asked the dealer why the change of position? If the clutch caused the damage why didn't the inspector say that and why didn't he include that in the original report? It was only after a concern was raised did they try and change the narrative. These will be questions probably left unanswered. I am going to request a top manager from ESP and set up a case with Ford. If anyone has done this then you know you better have 6 months of patience.

As a side note, there is no way the clutch was abused. The dealer said the clutch was fine when I spoke to them. The dealer is basically staying out of it at this point. They are taking the position that they can't do anything to sway or change the ESP position (i.e. not my problem).

Can you please provide the verbiage 7(d) from your ESP?

 

[MikeR397]

I am trying to get more info but it appears the ESP has changed their reasoning. So instead of saying off road racing they are now saying the statement below. Before everyone goes off, I have asked for the pictures of the clutch, release of the audio tape as I never said racing school; the lead inspector said HPDE is race school -- which I corrected him. He actually was snarky about HPDE, supercar 3rs and few other items which we don't need to get into. I don't think I will get any of this info from the dealer. The warranty side said legally they cannot give it to me.

I also asked the dealer why the change of position? If the clutch caused the damage why didn't the inspector say that and why didn't he include that in the original report? It was only after a concern was raised did they try and change the narrative. These will be questions probably left unanswered. I am going to request a top manager from ESP and set up a case with Ford. If anyone has done this then you know you better have 6 months of patience.

As a side note, there is no way the clutch was abused. The dealer said the clutch was fine when I spoke to them. The dealer is basically staying out of it at this point. They are taking the position that they can't do anything to sway or change the ESP position (i.e. not my problem).

Lol, i know exactly why they changed their losing position. There is an excluded item in the contract (section k? I’m not home now ) that says something like “if failure of a non-covered part damages a covered item, then coverage is excluded.” Said otherwise, the clutch is generally a wear item that’s excluded, and if they can prove you caused your clutch to be damaged (if indeed totally worn out) and that caused your transmission to be damaged, then they don’t have to pay out and the situation is vastly different than bullshit reason 1. If your clutch is totally worn out to the rivets indeed then it was a maintenance failure on your part and it’s game over. If it’s not ENTIRELY worn out, then they are still on the hook unless they can prove a normal wearing clutch can and did cause the damage to the transmission.

you’ll need pics of the clutch and an explanation from your dealer how/why the clutch is not damaged or why the damaged clutch was caused by the transmission (in which case the clutch should be covered but they will still probably say no like they did to me until I filed suit). The dealer has to diagnose your car and remember you have a right to keep all removed parts of your car.

eta: it’s section k in my esp, it might be different section letter in yours, but it will say the same thing.

 

[mikedahammer]

Can you please provide the verbiage 7(d) from your ESP?

Repairs caused by: (1) improper or unauthorized service procedures, collisions or other physical damage to the Vehicle; (2) damage caused by a foreign object; (3) unreasonable use (including driving over curbs, overloading, or using the Vehicle as a stationary power source); (4) continued use with an obvious failure; (5) damage from fire or explosions, road hazards, other casualty losses; or (6) losses due to negligence, including racing

Sponsored