mikedahammer
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #481
TL;DR - The question to be answered by the arbitrator is HPDE a form or subset of the word racing? That is what is being decided.
I struggled yesterday on how to post an update. Ideally I would just let everyone watch the hearing and then everyone else can form their own opinion. I am going to ask if I can get a copy of the hearing (which I am allowed) and if names and faces are redacted if it can be released.
I wasn't perfect as I would have like but that is always the case. I messed up on a few words but the mistakes were inconsequential. For example, while I was looking to present more information I said the GT500 was the predecessor of the GT350 instead of successor. With that the said it went really well and I believe I spanked them. I hope the arbitrator gives a deep analysis into the case.
The long update:
At the beginning of the arbitration the arbitrator wanted to stipulate that the case at hand was really only about defining HPDE and if it is a form of racing. This threw me off guard at the start because I was expecting to explain how we ended up in arbitration.
Ford brought an attorney and a technical expert. Ford and the technical agree to stipulate that the arbitration was really about HPDE and racing and are they related or intertwined. After Ford agreed to the stipulation, I also with the caveat that I agree as long as they do not enter into evidence other information since they have changed their position multiple times.
The arbitrator asked me to present information on HPDE and what is it. I told the arbitrator that I had no idea what HPDE was or track driving was until I bought the Mustang. I spent twenty minutes talking about HPDE with various organization and that Ford encourages taking the vehicle to the track and that Ford offers you a complimentary track day high performance driving experience. I talk about the track attack programs. I showed pictures of me in the track attack car and shows were I am outfitted with a rollbar and 4 or 5 point harness. I talked about why those are important and I show that the track attack cars removed their factory seat belts. I then show picture of my car with the same harness bar and same harnessed and how my car still has the factory seat belts and buckle. I talk about how HPDE is a car show but where you get to drive your car and it is social event where everyone is there to have fun and that you get to see cool cars but also get to see them go around the track. I have always told people that is my personal man spa day for me.
I explain that the safety items are not required but that I have them to mirror the track attack program and that those items should have no bearing on the transmission and talk about how I value my safety.
When I was done with the presentation I asked the arbitrator if he had any questions on HPDE: He asked me if I agreed that HPDE is not racing as defined in the warranty or any kind of common law definition of the meaning?
I then spend 10 minutes showing the base warranty from the owner's supplement and the list of exclusions as well as the Ford definition of racing and showing how the ESP contract uses the exact same exclusions and in some cases word for word. I further show that in the base warranty Ford includes in that document a section on the ESP and how purchasing it can get your more coverage than you already have and that it is recommended in the owner's supplement to purchase it.
It is Ford's turn now and they spend about 10 minutes talking:
Ford starts by trying to distance them from the new vehicle warranty and that the ESP has another set of terms and conditions. They do not spend much time on it and then go right to 7d of the contract of what is and what is not covered and then skip everything in that section except for losses due to negligence or racing. The attorney reads a definition about racing, she uses the following definition: she says the dictionary definition of racing that in the sport of automobiles is in which drivers compete against each other on course designed for racing or on a closed public road. They agree that there is no definition of racing in the contract and they say that there is separation between Ford's base warranty and the ESP and they we cannot use Ford's language.
Ford turns the floor over to their technical expert. The technical expert says it was denied by their department because the car was obviously used at a track. He talks about safety devices and how those devices were designed specifically for racing to protect the driver. He comes out and says that using the vehicle on track is not the reason for the denial and that using the car on the track is not automatically the reason for a denial. It is my specific use of the vehicle is the reason or the denial.
He says that if the power the steering failed at the track they would cover it because that failure was not a direct result of track use. He then talks about the tires on the car and how they have been overheated and then talks about a clutch. He says that the tires and clutch are indicators that the car has been used in racing.
He then goes on to say that it is widely known that HPDE only says no racing for insurance purposes and that have to do that because if they didnāt they would have to carry race insurance and it would be too expensive for those groups. He says that the way the vehicle is driven on the racetrack in HPDE events is no different than the way you would drive it in a race and the only difference is are you timing it and is there something trying to pass you at the same time.
He talks about how track advantage has a group that is unrestricted and requires a race license and that there is no way to know whether or not the vehicle was ever driven in race but they have clear evidence that the car has been to the track and has experienced the same stresses as it would see during a race.
The arbitrator asks the technical expert if the damage to the clutch is consistent with high intensity use, like racing? The technical expert says not only the clutch but the tires are indicative of racing because the tries had signs of high heat and high speed.
The arbitrator asked me I had any questions or not. I reminded the group that we stipulated to HPDE and racing and now we are talking about tires and the clutch. I present that the car has street legal DOT tires on it and that Ford has not presented any pictures of the tires or entered them into evidence and that I have pictures of the tires and clutch.
I go through the comparison of my clutch and the old clutch and how the dealer said the clutch has zero issues and was never brought up in the denial until questions about racing (i.e. their adjustment to their disposition). I talked about how the tires, the seats, or harness bar had no bearing on the transmission. I talk about how the attorney and technical expert are identifying themselves as Ford and that the Ford logo is on all of their paperwork and that they are trying to distance themselves from Ford but nothing shows they are different. I talk about how I can call Ford and they will transfer me to ESP and that I couldnāt call Chevy and have them transfer me to Ford. That the Fordās website will link you to the ESP.
Fordās technical expert presents the pictures of the tires. They were not submitted with the original information but during the presentation they bring up the pictures. I ask the technical expert about the indentations on the tires and why they are there. He said he is not a tire expert but they are for water dissipation. I tell him they are tread wear indicators and the tires still have life left in them. He talked about the sidewall line and how much heat went across the tire. We go back and forth about contact patch and I present a picture of the tire unused and how it does not look that much different from a brand new one. I show the arbitrator that the tires are not as he has described.
I asked the technical expert how he knew the transmission failed as a direct result of track use? He said because the dealer was saying that 2nd gear and 3rd gear were jamming up ad since they know the car was used on the track it was a direct result of the stresses it has seen and the overuse of those synchronizers. He also stated that on the track that those gears are extremely important and more used on a track with high speed corning.
I asked if in his technical opinion and if he would agree that if 2nd and 3rd gear synchronizers whether used on the track or not are the typical gears that fail in his technical opinion. He agrees that those are the most used gears and would typically ones that would fail because of the use of those gears.
I then ask him in technical knowledge if he would agree that the transmission in the GT350 is equipped with a transmission that can handle track use. He said that even though those gears are the ones that would typically wear out but for them to wear out at 9000 miles is extremely early. He also says the synchronizers are designed differently but that also assumes it is being driven by someone knows what they are doing and no missing shifts or grinding the clutch and those will wear out the synchronizers and that the propensity for that to happen is much greater at the track.
I asked if poor workmanship from Ford could cause the transmission to have a failure at this mileage. He says the chances are infinitely small since it was 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. I rebut and say that it seems like a workmanship issues if I have issues with all of those gears and that the car was resented for a similar issues one year ago and that it is possible it was fixed properly previously and that is why I am having continued problems.
We then spend 10 minutes bumbling through whether or not it was the same issue previously which was a giant waste of time.
The arbitrator asks if I have anything else. I spend 10 minutes on my closing argument. I go over HPDE briefly one more time about FATT, Chin, and Track Advantage and how I donāt have a race license and how we could call the sanctioning bodies to confirm. I talked about how the safety gear in those organizations only requires a helmet.
I quickly talk about hagerty insurance and opentrack and show where I purchased a policy and those policies do not cover you for competition or racing. So if the car was being used for racing why would I have regular car insurance, supplemental track insurance, and have the car tagged and titled for street use.
I point out that all the promotion material supports track use, that the ES supports track use, and it doesnāt matter who produced the material because it represents the car. I then point out how the ESP contract specifically excludes certain vehicles and that most of the vehicles excluded are high performance cars and that the ESP had every opportunity to exclude the GT350 and that they knew or should have known the vehicles they were insuring. That Ford had not provided a shred of evidence racing. The car was setup in the same way now as it was in 2020 when I purchased the warranty. They knew the car was used at the track when they sold me the warranty. They knew what the car looked like and how it was outfitted since it had been the dealership 15 times prior to selling me the warranty. That repairs were covered previously with the car in the same condition it is now and that they had every opportunity to deny me a warranty but they chose to enter into the agreement to cover that vehicle.
I show that it is reasonable to accept Fordās definition of racing because there is nothing to the contrary. That the ESP says on this call that track usage is allowed and that the car has been used as it was intended. I note that they have control of the vehicle and have had every opportunity to pull data from the car to show abuse or neglect and that I feel that they probably did pull that information and couldnāt find a way deny it that way.
I then show my computation of how I computed the loss of use of vehicle to quantify what I am asking and why I should be compensated and why the car is still at the dealership.
Fordās closing they ask the arbitrator to go back and review the testimony because I have presented a lot irrelevant information that that the arbitrator should not considered the other insurance contracts I have, or the HPDE documents, or the other vehicles excluded in the terms and conditions of the ESP are all irrelevant. They want denial not because it was used in a race but because the vehicle was used in the same manner as a race.
I end it by saying that it is misleading to allow the ESP to distance themselves from Ford when they are here on Fordās behalf as well.
I struggled yesterday on how to post an update. Ideally I would just let everyone watch the hearing and then everyone else can form their own opinion. I am going to ask if I can get a copy of the hearing (which I am allowed) and if names and faces are redacted if it can be released.
I wasn't perfect as I would have like but that is always the case. I messed up on a few words but the mistakes were inconsequential. For example, while I was looking to present more information I said the GT500 was the predecessor of the GT350 instead of successor. With that the said it went really well and I believe I spanked them. I hope the arbitrator gives a deep analysis into the case.
The long update:
At the beginning of the arbitration the arbitrator wanted to stipulate that the case at hand was really only about defining HPDE and if it is a form of racing. This threw me off guard at the start because I was expecting to explain how we ended up in arbitration.
Ford brought an attorney and a technical expert. Ford and the technical agree to stipulate that the arbitration was really about HPDE and racing and are they related or intertwined. After Ford agreed to the stipulation, I also with the caveat that I agree as long as they do not enter into evidence other information since they have changed their position multiple times.
The arbitrator asked me to present information on HPDE and what is it. I told the arbitrator that I had no idea what HPDE was or track driving was until I bought the Mustang. I spent twenty minutes talking about HPDE with various organization and that Ford encourages taking the vehicle to the track and that Ford offers you a complimentary track day high performance driving experience. I talk about the track attack programs. I showed pictures of me in the track attack car and shows were I am outfitted with a rollbar and 4 or 5 point harness. I talked about why those are important and I show that the track attack cars removed their factory seat belts. I then show picture of my car with the same harness bar and same harnessed and how my car still has the factory seat belts and buckle. I talk about how HPDE is a car show but where you get to drive your car and it is social event where everyone is there to have fun and that you get to see cool cars but also get to see them go around the track. I have always told people that is my personal man spa day for me.
I explain that the safety items are not required but that I have them to mirror the track attack program and that those items should have no bearing on the transmission and talk about how I value my safety.
When I was done with the presentation I asked the arbitrator if he had any questions on HPDE: He asked me if I agreed that HPDE is not racing as defined in the warranty or any kind of common law definition of the meaning?
I then spend 10 minutes showing the base warranty from the owner's supplement and the list of exclusions as well as the Ford definition of racing and showing how the ESP contract uses the exact same exclusions and in some cases word for word. I further show that in the base warranty Ford includes in that document a section on the ESP and how purchasing it can get your more coverage than you already have and that it is recommended in the owner's supplement to purchase it.
It is Ford's turn now and they spend about 10 minutes talking:
Ford starts by trying to distance them from the new vehicle warranty and that the ESP has another set of terms and conditions. They do not spend much time on it and then go right to 7d of the contract of what is and what is not covered and then skip everything in that section except for losses due to negligence or racing. The attorney reads a definition about racing, she uses the following definition: she says the dictionary definition of racing that in the sport of automobiles is in which drivers compete against each other on course designed for racing or on a closed public road. They agree that there is no definition of racing in the contract and they say that there is separation between Ford's base warranty and the ESP and they we cannot use Ford's language.
Ford turns the floor over to their technical expert. The technical expert says it was denied by their department because the car was obviously used at a track. He talks about safety devices and how those devices were designed specifically for racing to protect the driver. He comes out and says that using the vehicle on track is not the reason for the denial and that using the car on the track is not automatically the reason for a denial. It is my specific use of the vehicle is the reason or the denial.
He says that if the power the steering failed at the track they would cover it because that failure was not a direct result of track use. He then talks about the tires on the car and how they have been overheated and then talks about a clutch. He says that the tires and clutch are indicators that the car has been used in racing.
He then goes on to say that it is widely known that HPDE only says no racing for insurance purposes and that have to do that because if they didnāt they would have to carry race insurance and it would be too expensive for those groups. He says that the way the vehicle is driven on the racetrack in HPDE events is no different than the way you would drive it in a race and the only difference is are you timing it and is there something trying to pass you at the same time.
He talks about how track advantage has a group that is unrestricted and requires a race license and that there is no way to know whether or not the vehicle was ever driven in race but they have clear evidence that the car has been to the track and has experienced the same stresses as it would see during a race.
The arbitrator asks the technical expert if the damage to the clutch is consistent with high intensity use, like racing? The technical expert says not only the clutch but the tires are indicative of racing because the tries had signs of high heat and high speed.
The arbitrator asked me I had any questions or not. I reminded the group that we stipulated to HPDE and racing and now we are talking about tires and the clutch. I present that the car has street legal DOT tires on it and that Ford has not presented any pictures of the tires or entered them into evidence and that I have pictures of the tires and clutch.
I go through the comparison of my clutch and the old clutch and how the dealer said the clutch has zero issues and was never brought up in the denial until questions about racing (i.e. their adjustment to their disposition). I talked about how the tires, the seats, or harness bar had no bearing on the transmission. I talk about how the attorney and technical expert are identifying themselves as Ford and that the Ford logo is on all of their paperwork and that they are trying to distance themselves from Ford but nothing shows they are different. I talk about how I can call Ford and they will transfer me to ESP and that I couldnāt call Chevy and have them transfer me to Ford. That the Fordās website will link you to the ESP.
Fordās technical expert presents the pictures of the tires. They were not submitted with the original information but during the presentation they bring up the pictures. I ask the technical expert about the indentations on the tires and why they are there. He said he is not a tire expert but they are for water dissipation. I tell him they are tread wear indicators and the tires still have life left in them. He talked about the sidewall line and how much heat went across the tire. We go back and forth about contact patch and I present a picture of the tire unused and how it does not look that much different from a brand new one. I show the arbitrator that the tires are not as he has described.
I asked the technical expert how he knew the transmission failed as a direct result of track use? He said because the dealer was saying that 2nd gear and 3rd gear were jamming up ad since they know the car was used on the track it was a direct result of the stresses it has seen and the overuse of those synchronizers. He also stated that on the track that those gears are extremely important and more used on a track with high speed corning.
I asked if in his technical opinion and if he would agree that if 2nd and 3rd gear synchronizers whether used on the track or not are the typical gears that fail in his technical opinion. He agrees that those are the most used gears and would typically ones that would fail because of the use of those gears.
I then ask him in technical knowledge if he would agree that the transmission in the GT350 is equipped with a transmission that can handle track use. He said that even though those gears are the ones that would typically wear out but for them to wear out at 9000 miles is extremely early. He also says the synchronizers are designed differently but that also assumes it is being driven by someone knows what they are doing and no missing shifts or grinding the clutch and those will wear out the synchronizers and that the propensity for that to happen is much greater at the track.
I asked if poor workmanship from Ford could cause the transmission to have a failure at this mileage. He says the chances are infinitely small since it was 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. I rebut and say that it seems like a workmanship issues if I have issues with all of those gears and that the car was resented for a similar issues one year ago and that it is possible it was fixed properly previously and that is why I am having continued problems.
We then spend 10 minutes bumbling through whether or not it was the same issue previously which was a giant waste of time.
The arbitrator asks if I have anything else. I spend 10 minutes on my closing argument. I go over HPDE briefly one more time about FATT, Chin, and Track Advantage and how I donāt have a race license and how we could call the sanctioning bodies to confirm. I talked about how the safety gear in those organizations only requires a helmet.
I quickly talk about hagerty insurance and opentrack and show where I purchased a policy and those policies do not cover you for competition or racing. So if the car was being used for racing why would I have regular car insurance, supplemental track insurance, and have the car tagged and titled for street use.
I point out that all the promotion material supports track use, that the ES supports track use, and it doesnāt matter who produced the material because it represents the car. I then point out how the ESP contract specifically excludes certain vehicles and that most of the vehicles excluded are high performance cars and that the ESP had every opportunity to exclude the GT350 and that they knew or should have known the vehicles they were insuring. That Ford had not provided a shred of evidence racing. The car was setup in the same way now as it was in 2020 when I purchased the warranty. They knew the car was used at the track when they sold me the warranty. They knew what the car looked like and how it was outfitted since it had been the dealership 15 times prior to selling me the warranty. That repairs were covered previously with the car in the same condition it is now and that they had every opportunity to deny me a warranty but they chose to enter into the agreement to cover that vehicle.
I show that it is reasonable to accept Fordās definition of racing because there is nothing to the contrary. That the ESP says on this call that track usage is allowed and that the car has been used as it was intended. I note that they have control of the vehicle and have had every opportunity to pull data from the car to show abuse or neglect and that I feel that they probably did pull that information and couldnāt find a way deny it that way.
I then show my computation of how I computed the loss of use of vehicle to quantify what I am asking and why I should be compensated and why the car is still at the dealership.
Fordās closing they ask the arbitrator to go back and review the testimony because I have presented a lot irrelevant information that that the arbitrator should not considered the other insurance contracts I have, or the HPDE documents, or the other vehicles excluded in the terms and conditions of the ESP are all irrelevant. They want denial not because it was used in a race but because the vehicle was used in the same manner as a race.
I end it by saying that it is misleading to allow the ESP to distance themselves from Ford when they are here on Fordās behalf as well.
Sponsored
