Sponsored
Ford Inspector for Warranty Repair-Update:Warranty Denied Claim Due to Off Road Racing
- Thread starter mikedahammer
- Start date
- Watchers 66
Robottrainer
Well-Known Member
Anybody you touches my stuff...
2016S550
Well-Known Member
Is there a difference between a High Speed Racing Event and a High Speed Driving Event other than a clock or opposing vehicle? Im just curious how a Civil Jury would look at that, surely the forces placed on the car are the same. Hopefully the ESP has to cover it in the end.
Creedog
Well-Known Member
All of you claim Ford ESP can’t deny this transmission claim, you’re wrong. Ford ESP can deny and already have denied the claim, any time they want. Ford is hemorrhaging money now. I am well of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act so don’t site that please. The world is a tough place to fight a big Corp that can outlast and out spend you.
OP can get an attorney if he wants to pay more out of pocket than transmission replacement, then all power to him. ESP still denies claim. He can go the new route he started, good luck to him. In court, ESP attorney states your honor, the claimant has documented racing seats and racing roll bar. We denied the claim because we will not cover a vehicle when said vehicle in question has been raced. The computer documentation indicates he was traveling over 140 mph at high rpm’s. Clearly he was racing. HPDE or actual racing, known history of failed equipment. Judge rules in the favor for ESP. Sorry OP, pay for a new transmission if you have not already. Or get another vehicle to track with at this point.
Sorry to be so harsh and blunt but you are out of luck this time. Time and money fighting a losing battle, cut your losses now and get your ride back on the streets.
OP can get an attorney if he wants to pay more out of pocket than transmission replacement, then all power to him. ESP still denies claim. He can go the new route he started, good luck to him. In court, ESP attorney states your honor, the claimant has documented racing seats and racing roll bar. We denied the claim because we will not cover a vehicle when said vehicle in question has been raced. The computer documentation indicates he was traveling over 140 mph at high rpm’s. Clearly he was racing. HPDE or actual racing, known history of failed equipment. Judge rules in the favor for ESP. Sorry OP, pay for a new transmission if you have not already. Or get another vehicle to track with at this point.
Sorry to be so harsh and blunt but you are out of luck this time. Time and money fighting a losing battle, cut your losses now and get your ride back on the streets.
Sponsored
Cobra Jet
Well-Known Member
I've read through this entire thread. There's some good valid points, some fodder that would not hold up from a legal battle aspect and in some instances, verbiage banter wars...
I've participated in some of the Warranty threads on this site in the last 8 years.
The "problem" is how Ford's Legal Team AND any aftermarket ESP warranty provider has defined what is and is not covered.
The biggest offending terms are the words "racing", "track", and "off road". All are defined as taking a vehicle deemed for the street (ie: daily driving in simple terms) and that vehicle is now on a surface that is "off road" (ie: off public highways/biways/roads, free of traffic control devices and free of public interferences).
Currently, whether HPDE, Drag Racing, Road Racing or Auto Cross, the term "racing" is lumping ALL together into that singular term - because the fact is - the vehicle is off-road and IS being used in a manner that although not always in or defined as "competitive" nature, but the vehicle is being used in a manner where it's at higher RPM/Speed at longer or shorter intervals than how it would normally be if driven on the street.
One could argue that say traveling across country, yes you could sustain MPH of 75mph (or plug any figure here) for hours on end. The difference is, THAT 75mph although sustained, isn't being sustained in a lower gear at a higher RPM, OR being constantly downshifted/upshifted OR under heavy braking, OR being put under duress, nor is the car being "pushed" to XYZ limitation.
While I get the frustrations and the fact of being denied a claim where now it's out of pocket - it's the WORDING of "off-road", "track", and "racing". Everyone can argue all day long into infinity that "HPDE" isn't a "racing" event. The problem is, we all know at HPDE events, drivers surely aren't putzing around the TRACK at granny speeds... off-road = off public roadways and in the instance of an HPDE, the vehicle IS on a dedicated TRACK.
Unless Ford Legal redefines OR recategorizes the terms "off-road" and "racing", and specifically calls out HPDE as NOT being grouped in with "off-road" or "racing", this problem will ALWAYS persist.
As others have said - the OP can get legally intertwined with Attorneys - but at what cost? And who will win? If the OP wins, he sets a precedence in a landmark ruling... that's IF he were to win. The problem being, Ford and any aftermarket Legal Team has bigger pockets and can stall/fight the process for YEARS.
If we read the actual words used in the "exclusions or denials" under the Ford Warranty and aftermarket Warranty legal mumbo jumbo - I am sure you all can agree on these 3 facts:
- The vehicle was used for off-road events (HPDE)
- The vehicle while not "racing" was still off-road and performing beyond the normal scope of daily driving where RPM/MPH tolerances *may be pushed to certain limitations or beyond*
- The vehicle was and has been on a Track performing at an HPDE event.
---
Abuse.... this is subjective and I'm not even going to get into it - because this term leaves open for MANY interpretations and what may be deemed "abuse" to 10 people may not be for the next 10. The only way that it could be said that the transmission failed was due to "abuse" would be to examine the physical parts and determine sheering, metallurgic comparisons of how the metals or parts broke and at what constraints, as well as any PCM dataset that would confirm that point of failure occurred when the vehicle was traveling at X-mph, was at x-rpm and at x-temps.
Clearly by the images of the clutch assembly, there is NOT any signs of "abuse" to me or maybe others. You can go pull a clutch assembly out of 20 vehicles equipped with a manual trans and out of those 20, I guarantee you will find 15 pressure plates and flywheels with similar "wear" patterns or scoring burned to the surfaces... more so if the clutch is is operated by someone who rides it.... So to ME, those images supplied by the Dealer of the trans parts does not indicate any signs of "abuse". Again, totally subjective.
--
While I agree with others that an HPDE event isn't really competitive "racing" per se, factually it is still an off-road event where the car is on a track. I don't agree that HPDE event should be lumped in with the terms "racing" and "off-road", but that is how these Corporate Legal Teams are drawing up the terminology... Until THAT changes, this will be an uphill battle.
As far as the Ford Dealerships, they are all Franchised and each is run differently even though they are all under the Ford Corp. umbrella. They all are issued a Ford Policy and Warranty Manual that also breaks out the same terms we see in the vehicle Owner's Manuals regarding "off road", "track", and "racing". What each Franchised Dealer does as to how they handle any single claim could be a positive result or negative for the Consumer. We've seen and read where Dealership 1 replaced an engine under warranty on someone's "race car" where the next Dealership 2 would have denied it. That comes down to how the work order is written up by the Tech and what the Service Writer is putting in their findings for a major warranty claim.
The other consideration for a denial would be:
Has the vehicle had major warranty repair work completed in the past - and what was that claim and the dollar value of the repair? If the vehicle is coming in multiple times for major repair work - Ford is going to want a more thorough review of the current claim more so if it's another "major" claim. Now I'm not implying major claims should get denied if say an engine blows up 2x on the same vehicle, all I'm saying is at that stage of the claim, the Dealership no longer has a say and has to abide by Ford's instructions for further investigation.
So we can argue this or that, but there's many other points to take into consideration that are being overlooked.
I've participated in some of the Warranty threads on this site in the last 8 years.
The "problem" is how Ford's Legal Team AND any aftermarket ESP warranty provider has defined what is and is not covered.
The biggest offending terms are the words "racing", "track", and "off road". All are defined as taking a vehicle deemed for the street (ie: daily driving in simple terms) and that vehicle is now on a surface that is "off road" (ie: off public highways/biways/roads, free of traffic control devices and free of public interferences).
Currently, whether HPDE, Drag Racing, Road Racing or Auto Cross, the term "racing" is lumping ALL together into that singular term - because the fact is - the vehicle is off-road and IS being used in a manner that although not always in or defined as "competitive" nature, but the vehicle is being used in a manner where it's at higher RPM/Speed at longer or shorter intervals than how it would normally be if driven on the street.
One could argue that say traveling across country, yes you could sustain MPH of 75mph (or plug any figure here) for hours on end. The difference is, THAT 75mph although sustained, isn't being sustained in a lower gear at a higher RPM, OR being constantly downshifted/upshifted OR under heavy braking, OR being put under duress, nor is the car being "pushed" to XYZ limitation.
While I get the frustrations and the fact of being denied a claim where now it's out of pocket - it's the WORDING of "off-road", "track", and "racing". Everyone can argue all day long into infinity that "HPDE" isn't a "racing" event. The problem is, we all know at HPDE events, drivers surely aren't putzing around the TRACK at granny speeds... off-road = off public roadways and in the instance of an HPDE, the vehicle IS on a dedicated TRACK.
Unless Ford Legal redefines OR recategorizes the terms "off-road" and "racing", and specifically calls out HPDE as NOT being grouped in with "off-road" or "racing", this problem will ALWAYS persist.
As others have said - the OP can get legally intertwined with Attorneys - but at what cost? And who will win? If the OP wins, he sets a precedence in a landmark ruling... that's IF he were to win. The problem being, Ford and any aftermarket Legal Team has bigger pockets and can stall/fight the process for YEARS.
If we read the actual words used in the "exclusions or denials" under the Ford Warranty and aftermarket Warranty legal mumbo jumbo - I am sure you all can agree on these 3 facts:
- The vehicle was used for off-road events (HPDE)
- The vehicle while not "racing" was still off-road and performing beyond the normal scope of daily driving where RPM/MPH tolerances *may be pushed to certain limitations or beyond*
- The vehicle was and has been on a Track performing at an HPDE event.
---
Abuse.... this is subjective and I'm not even going to get into it - because this term leaves open for MANY interpretations and what may be deemed "abuse" to 10 people may not be for the next 10. The only way that it could be said that the transmission failed was due to "abuse" would be to examine the physical parts and determine sheering, metallurgic comparisons of how the metals or parts broke and at what constraints, as well as any PCM dataset that would confirm that point of failure occurred when the vehicle was traveling at X-mph, was at x-rpm and at x-temps.
Clearly by the images of the clutch assembly, there is NOT any signs of "abuse" to me or maybe others. You can go pull a clutch assembly out of 20 vehicles equipped with a manual trans and out of those 20, I guarantee you will find 15 pressure plates and flywheels with similar "wear" patterns or scoring burned to the surfaces... more so if the clutch is is operated by someone who rides it.... So to ME, those images supplied by the Dealer of the trans parts does not indicate any signs of "abuse". Again, totally subjective.
--
While I agree with others that an HPDE event isn't really competitive "racing" per se, factually it is still an off-road event where the car is on a track. I don't agree that HPDE event should be lumped in with the terms "racing" and "off-road", but that is how these Corporate Legal Teams are drawing up the terminology... Until THAT changes, this will be an uphill battle.
As far as the Ford Dealerships, they are all Franchised and each is run differently even though they are all under the Ford Corp. umbrella. They all are issued a Ford Policy and Warranty Manual that also breaks out the same terms we see in the vehicle Owner's Manuals regarding "off road", "track", and "racing". What each Franchised Dealer does as to how they handle any single claim could be a positive result or negative for the Consumer. We've seen and read where Dealership 1 replaced an engine under warranty on someone's "race car" where the next Dealership 2 would have denied it. That comes down to how the work order is written up by the Tech and what the Service Writer is putting in their findings for a major warranty claim.
The other consideration for a denial would be:
Has the vehicle had major warranty repair work completed in the past - and what was that claim and the dollar value of the repair? If the vehicle is coming in multiple times for major repair work - Ford is going to want a more thorough review of the current claim more so if it's another "major" claim. Now I'm not implying major claims should get denied if say an engine blows up 2x on the same vehicle, all I'm saying is at that stage of the claim, the Dealership no longer has a say and has to abide by Ford's instructions for further investigation.
So we can argue this or that, but there's many other points to take into consideration that are being overlooked.
K4fxd
Well-Known Member
What you are missing is in contract law unless a term is defined plain use of the term is the legal definition. So unless Ford or ESP defines racing as including HPDE, auto X or anything else the term gets defined by the dictionary.
I didn't see the term off road in the warranty but that could mean in the parking lot of your local grocery store or driving across your lawn.
They deny these hoping you will go away.
I didn't see the term off road in the warranty but that could mean in the parking lot of your local grocery store or driving across your lawn.
They deny these hoping you will go away.
Cobra Jet
Well-Known Member
And
as for the comments that Jim Owens said this or that regarding Ford Warranties and how a GT350 or GT500 CAN be driven or used - until he comes on this site and backs every M6G owner who has been denied a claim and gets them righted - his verbal discussion means absolutely NOTHING.
He may say that taking a Mustang to XYZ event to participate would be covered if ABC happens despite what the Ford Owners Manuals state regarding "off-road" use, "track" use and "racing" - but he didn't write the Legal Ford Warranties or ESP's. So again, he can talk, discuss or say whatever he likes, regardless of his position, personal or professional affiliations, etc - but it means nothing at all.
I have yet to see HIM come on this site and stick up for every owner who's been denied a claim after they had a failure at any type of off-road, track, or racing event - competitive, timed or not.
Have him make a visit here and explain his position and why if a vehicle designed, sold AND Tracked by Ford is being denied claims. I would love to hear it directly from him - and no, I'm not being a sarcastic smart ass - I want to hear the same discussion, reasoning and why Ford isn't following "Jim's" ideology.
as for the comments that Jim Owens said this or that regarding Ford Warranties and how a GT350 or GT500 CAN be driven or used - until he comes on this site and backs every M6G owner who has been denied a claim and gets them righted - his verbal discussion means absolutely NOTHING.
He may say that taking a Mustang to XYZ event to participate would be covered if ABC happens despite what the Ford Owners Manuals state regarding "off-road" use, "track" use and "racing" - but he didn't write the Legal Ford Warranties or ESP's. So again, he can talk, discuss or say whatever he likes, regardless of his position, personal or professional affiliations, etc - but it means nothing at all.
I have yet to see HIM come on this site and stick up for every owner who's been denied a claim after they had a failure at any type of off-road, track, or racing event - competitive, timed or not.
Have him make a visit here and explain his position and why if a vehicle designed, sold AND Tracked by Ford is being denied claims. I would love to hear it directly from him - and no, I'm not being a sarcastic smart ass - I want to hear the same discussion, reasoning and why Ford isn't following "Jim's" ideology.
Last edited:
MikeR397
Well-Known Member
Gotcha. So my Gt350R is currently “off roading” parked in my front yard (grass!) as my garage addition is being built. Sucks I lost all value of my multi thousand dollar warranty from this off roading spree.
I still don’t get the fascination here to compare stresses of hpde and racing. It’s totally irrelevant. What is relevant is he has a track car literally built and marketed for track use and track speeds and you honestly think it’s ok for ford to put their name on an esp and sell it with car purchase and then say “well, you Did one lunch session parade lap on track, kiss your $3,000 warranty goodbye?”
Sponsored
MikeR397
Well-Known Member
Btw, when I studied contract law in law school, they teach you that under a contract of adhesion (ie take it or leave it terms provided by one side), any ambiguity in the definition of a term is generally taken in favor of a consumer (or the party that did not participate in the formation of the contract). This correlates with consumer protection statutes and case law as well.
The only relevant issue here is “racing.” For it to be auto racing, it has to be a competition which is timed. Anyone who has ever been to one DE event (or can operate Google) knows that DE is not racing EVEN IF you are going really really really fast and furious all over the place with the highest of stresses and stressors.
If the contract wanted to exclude “all high speed track usage” then it needs to have said that, so consumers have relevant information when making decisions to buy the vehicle and extended coverage.
The only relevant issue here is “racing.” For it to be auto racing, it has to be a competition which is timed. Anyone who has ever been to one DE event (or can operate Google) knows that DE is not racing EVEN IF you are going really really really fast and furious all over the place with the highest of stresses and stressors.
If the contract wanted to exclude “all high speed track usage” then it needs to have said that, so consumers have relevant information when making decisions to buy the vehicle and extended coverage.
passwords
Well-Known Member
Where in the ESP are the terms “track” and “off-road” used? Refer to post #49 for the language in the Exclusions and Definitions sections of the ESP. The ESP company may have used those terms as a basis for the denial, but they are not allowed to make up terms and criteria outside the language of the contract. The lead investigator and others Mike talked to at Ford Motor Service Company (Ford Protect) present as poorly trained call center employees, not experienced professionals.
I deal with contact compliance issues in my day job (nothing consumer related) - it’s all I’ve done for the last 23 years. So I understand the relevance of a contract, which is what the ESP is. Saying activity that causes more stress on a car than idling stationary in a parking lot (yes I’m embellishing here) should be considered racing is not relevant because those arguments fall far outside the construct of the contract. It’s just noise.
There may be many other elements that lay-people can argue and debate, but that doesn’t make them relevant to the expressed terms of the contract. An experienced arbitrator would never entertain such nonsense.
2016S550
Well-Known Member
All the above sounds very reasonable to me…The ESP is just hoping to deny/prolong/scare the consumer and hope they go away. Kinda like how the VA treats Veterans trying to obtain compensation all while pretending to support and be there for you in times of need.
Tomster
Beware of idiots
Very rarely do I disagree with you. However, I feel you are wrong here.
Reference the attached ESP terms and conditions. 7. e) losses to to negligence, racing. 7. t) Vehicles used for competitive driving/racing/off-road use.
Reference the warranty language defining racing (despite the ESP not specifically defining the term racing. Ford defines racing as "for competition or time".
HPDE events are not racing. Every HPDE event I have ever been to does not advocate any kind of competition or competitiveness. To the contrary, they strictly forbit it. The car was designed to be a track use car. It is advertised and marketed that way and that is not a stretch.
The car in question has been used in a manner in which the car was designed, engineered, and marketed as.
If you were to use the car at an HPDE event in a competitive manner, racing others around the track, like there was a hottie with a large check at the end of it, you would be black flagged and thrown out. That is not a stretch either.
Sponsored