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

[MikeR397]

Ya, it is section k stating excluded items: repairs needed to a covered part caused by the failure of a non-covered.

so the next step is what is the dealers position on if the clutch is “failed.” If it’s not failed, they lose this argument. If it is failed, then the dealer has to state they “have knowable proof the customer caused the clutch to fail (ie totally worn out) and as a direct result of the failed clutch, the transmission was damaged.”

Sponsored

 

[mikedahammer]

The original diagnosis from the dealership had no mention of the clutch. Therefore the dealership found no issues regarding such.

I even have an email from the service advisor that says the clutch is fine

 

[MikeR397]

The original diagnosis from the dealership had no mention of the clutch. Therefore the dealership found no issues regarding such.

I even have an email from the service advisor that says the clutch is fine

They are grasping at straws. This puts you in a pretty good position. If the dealer says the clutch is fine they have to remove this reason and explain their comments. At that point I would mention bad faith and breach of contract with these tactics on their recorded line.

I’d love to see a pic of the clutch…

 

[mikedahammer]

Now everyone can see.

In their response they are not backing down from a closed circuit is considered neglect and abuse. He double downed by adding that verbiage from the original reasoning. They consciously chose to add that position above and beyond the original off road racing.

My assumption would be as a fail safe and to support their original analysis. Switching their position without further analysis and inspectors seems to be a knee jerk reaction when questioned. If you can’t drive it on a track why change your position as you had be dead to rights if you your original statement was true.

 

[MikeR397]

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.

This is literally want I am currently going through with them (esp) on my broken raptor spring. They said it was a damaged shock at first and that’s excluded under section k so coverage to the tie rod and half shaft and required alignment after is all excluded.

I then said the shock is fine, it’s the spring that snapped and I don’t see how this is confusing to diagnose. They said “a spring is a shock“ and that I have shocks, not covered struts on the raptor. I then provided them an individual part number for the coilover spring, separate from the shock. That’s enough right there, but funny enough the listing description on the spring says “strut spring.”https://parts.lakelandford.com/p/Ford__/Coil-Spring/64881647/HL3Z5310A.html

like I said, these third party esp people will do any dirty and fraudulent tactic to avoid a big claim. I would be tickled to really go after then if they deny me again, but a supervuuisr told me it’s being amended and everything should be covered. Curious they waited for the customer to read them the contract before coming to this conclusion.

 

[passwords]

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.

I would agree with your premise but if you look in Section 3 of your ESP you’ll see that “unreasonable use,” “negligence,” and “racing” are not defined within the ESP. So who gets to chose what those terms mean, in the context of the ESP contract? Hint: it’s not just the company offering the ESP…. Absent expansion of those terms within the ESP to exclude HPDE events or even driving your car onto a track, it is reasonable for the consumer to believe coverage applies to all uses for which the car was engineered, marketed, and sold, and to interpret the exclusions in Section 7(d) in that light.

 

[MikeR397]

These gt350’s need love and attention. They feel neglected if they DON’T get to go to the track.

Now everyone can see.

In their response they are not backing down from a closed circuit is considered neglect and abuse. He double downed by adding that verbiage from the original reasoning. They consciously chose to add that position above and beyond the original off road racing.

My assumption would be as a fail safe and to support their original analysis. Switching their position without further analysis and inspectors seems to be a knee jerk reaction when questioned. If you can’t drive it on a track why change your position as you had be dead to rights if you your original statement was true.

yes, that written statement is your gold to win at arbitration, with or without an attorney. But it could be enough to get a good attorney interested in blowing this up outside the scope of arbitration. You’ll need an actual attorney to assess the procedure on that.

don’t forget state complaint avenues. The BBB is another place you can lodge a complaint.

 

[CANTWN4LSN]

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...

This is an important distinction to make.

FWIW I was mistakenly under the same impression when recently needing approval for an engine replacement under an ESP at 50K+ miles for oil consumption and was flabbergasted when informed that it was contingent on inspecting the clutch and flywheel for "signs of abuse". My car passed as no track and almost all highway miles but I was sweating the same awaiting word as I failed to understand this difference. Despite what this car was intended for under the factory warranty, excess wear/damage does occur at high rev use whether technically racing or not and an ESP to our chagrin may not cover it, as I assumed it would. I'm glad I did not have to go the lawyer route which may well have been a toss up. That said, I am hoping for the best for you.

 

[honeybadger]

I have nothing constructive to add. Just wanted to extend my sympathies to you>

I recently had a situation with our volvo where a bug hit the AC condenser and punctured it (you read that right, a grasshopper damaged our AC system). Volvo denied warranty because of "impact."

Our comprehensive end-to-end coverage against accidentals (dealer warranty) also denied it because it was deemed "user error" because I apparently didn't take out other drivers on the road trying to avoid the bug. Pure insanity.

These warranties are a pure scam.

 

[MAGS1]

I would agree with your premise but if you look in Section 3 of your ESP you’ll see that “unreasonable use,” “negligence,” and “racing” are not defined within the ESP. So who gets to chose what those terms mean, in the context of the ESP contract? Hint: it’s not just the company offering the ESP…. Absent expansion of those terms within the ESP to exclude HPDE events or even driving your car onto a track, it is reasonable for the consumer to believe coverage applies to all uses for which the car was engineered, marketed, and sold, and to interpret the exclusions in Section 7(d) in that light.

Fair points. I would likely look to the owners manual first for those terms to see if they’re defined (I haven’t read mine in a while so I would need to go back and check) if the original warranty has expired. cases that have set precedent to go back to the original warranty for defined terms if they’re not defined in the new agreement. An attorney should be able to find that. But otherwise, yes, by lack of defined terms you could interpret that to mean you can use the car as it was fully designed and marketed for (track use) and be covered.

Sorry, didn’t mean to butt in as a non-350 owner, I just find this interesting and the justification for denial pretty laughable, especially without some photographic evidence of the clutch being worn down to nothing. Not to mention the dealer basically contradicting the inspector since the OP has an email from them stating the clutch is fine.

I do also understand their first instinct is to look for reasons to deny coverage since paying out claims doesn’t make them any money (it is a business after all). But their logic on this one is pretty laughable, assuming the clutch isn’t worn down to nothing.

 

[jmn444]

This is making me re-think keeping this car lol

 

[honeybadger]

This is making me re-think keeping this car lol

Go CPC and send it

 

[jmn444]

Go CPC and send it

logical except a huge reason I picked this car was warranty support and i have 3 more years of ESP on it.

kind of annoying to now be worried about the stuff that I specifically chose this platform to avoid worrying about

 

[Kachow]

This is making me re-think keeping this car lol

Not to harp on OP, but the dealer I took my car to for the engine replacement told me that ESP was really only interested in looking for evidence of "racing". They didn't ask for any ECU data, simply wanted pictures of engine bay for mods, tires, wheel wells, stickers etc etc you get the point.

Pain in the ass...but if something happens...put your street wheels back on and clean the car.

 

[K4fxd]

I'm not a lawyer. I did reach out to a lawyer and was told unless a term is spelled out you can use a common definition of that term. IE; Racing would be a competition between 2 or more competitors with a winner.

So in order to exclude HPDE events it would need it's own definition in the contract IE; Racing includes any closed circuit track use.

OP Sorry for your troubles but I believe you will prevail in the end.

The lesson here is if an engine or any major thing breaks, make sure there are no signs of "racing" on the car before it goes to the dealer.

Sponsored