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

[passwords]

Can you repeat after me :
All ford performance parts are aftermarket parts
Ford performance parts are not genuine ford parts
So I guess that because you’re wrong on your first point,,you’re also wrong on you second point
A few minutes of research would have spared you this embarrassing moment

I didn’t say anything about Ford Performance parts, I was talking about the company itself as an example in the context of the ESP denial. My GT350R window sticker includes both Ford and Ford Performance. Using your logic then, my car is an “aftermarket” car. Is it a Ford Mustang, or is it a Ford Performance GT350R. The answer is yes. To both. The language you posted was specific to Ford Performance parts and is not relevant here.

I can also point to another direct contradiction in post #272 where Ford Motor Company itself provided an affirmation of the FMSC denial. Note FMC did not attempt to argue FMSC is an aftermarket company and, therefore, has no affiliation with FMC. The lack of any statement toward that point is telling.

The reason I brought this distinction up in the first place is because while the basis for the denial has been viewed as “racing,” the basis for denial has also been stated as “negligence or racing.” The FMC letter even stated that “aggressive driving” will cause wear that is the source of the failure. So what does “negligence” mean for a GT350? What does “aggressive driving” mean for a GT350? When FMSC wrote the ESP, did FMSC not have any reasonable understanding of the use case for the GT350, viewing it no differently than an ecoboost convertible? Of course they did, because they are a part of the Ford family of companies. Therefore, because the ESP did not make ANY attempt at limiting reasonable use of the GT350 under the ESP from the way it was originally marketed, it is perfectly reasonable for all GT350 owners who purchased a FMSC/Ford Protect ESP to believe they can continue to use their cars on track and that subsequent failures that occur on track will be covered by the ESP. It is not reasonable in any way for FMSC to equate HPDE use as “negligence” or some form of prohibited “aggressive driving.”

We all know that track use is harder on mechanical components than driving to church on Sunday at speeds under 25mph. That fact is irrelevant as well. FMSC entered into a bilateral contract where the risk of loss was skewed toward FMSC when the ESP purchasers use their cars on track. That’s not unfair, it’s a poor business decision.

I’m not going to get into a pissing match here, so this will be my last post on this topic.

Sponsored

 

[WItoTX]

Fun. and education, if you want it. Pretty similar to a brisk canyon drive past the speed limit. Nobody is saying that’s a breach of warranty for “racing” even if you do it with a group of friends.

Okay. So it's just parade laps in your opinion? If so, then yeah I understand your position. I don't agree, but I understand.

 

[MikeR397]

Okay. So it's just parade laps in your opinion? If so, then yeah I understand your position. I don't agree, but I understand.

What’s parade laps have to do with it? Generally, I’m not making a position on what’s “stressful” or similar stress levels if this is what you are getting at? That’s irrelevant because the contract doesn’t says “flooring your car and full break pressure voids your warranty.” People taking this “racing language” the wrong way are apparently assuming that if you run a 50mph parade lap then you are “off roading” and “on a race track” so therefore you are racing and losing warranty coverage.

I am simply saying the contract language is not so restrictive to void you entire warranty that you paid thousands of dollars for just because you want to drive your fast car fast, on a track or on a road. They could have used restrictive language like this, “any use on a race track” but they balanced financial benefit of selling contracts over selling overly restrictive coverage terms. They don’t want to cover people with racing licenses in race events, that’s what “racing” means in motorsports. Going fast isn’t racing. In my experience, 99.5% of DE events require a point by to pass someone even in advanced. They don’t do mandatory point bys or black flags on those passing without a point by in racing.

edit: they may have included this racing language bc they are smarter than we give them credit for. It gives them plausible deniability on fraudulent denial of covered claims to the extent they may lose a case here or there to someone willing to stand up to them on the issue, but the masses will bend over and take it, letting them keep the thousands of dollars paid for coverage for no real benefit at all. I don’t practice law anymore, but if I did and was being paid six figures as in house counsel and wanted to impress a big money hungry corporation, this is the position I’d suggest to them.

 

[luc]

What’s parade laps have to do with it? Generally, I’m not making a position on what’s “stressful” or similar stress levels if this is what you are getting at? That’s irrelevant because the contract doesn’t says “flooring your car and full break pressure voids your warranty.” People taking this “racing language” the wrong way are apparently assuming that if you run a 50mph parade lap then you are “off roading” and “on a race track” so therefore you are racing and losing warranty coverage.

I am simply saying the contract language is not so restrictive to void you entire warranty that you paid thousands of dollars for just because you want to drive your fast car fast, on a track or on a road. They could have used restrictive language like this, “any use on a race track” but they balanced financial benefit of selling contracts over selling overly restrictive coverage terms. They don’t want to cover people with racing licenses in race events, that’s what “racing” means in motorsports. Going fast isn’t racing. In my experience, 99.5% of DE events require a point by to pass someone even in advanced. They don’t do mandatory point bys or black flags on those passing without a point by in racing.

edit: they may have included this racing language bc they are smarter than we give them credit for. It gives them plausible deniability on fraudulent denial of covered claims to the extent they may lose a case here or there to someone willing to stand up to them on the issue, but the masses will bend over and take it, letting them keep the thousands of dollars paid for coverage for no real benefit at all. I don’t practice law anymore, but if I did and was being paid six figures as in house counsel and wanted to impress a big money hungry corporation, this is the position I’d suggest to them.

Surprising how different my experience is, i have raced, yes, with a scca national comp license, and done hpde for over 30 years, have owned an race and hpde club in California for almost 20 years and i don’t know of a single club , at least in California, that requires points by in the advanced group. Its open passing, including in turns
Also most hpde drivers time themselves

 

[MikeR397]

Surprising how different my experience is, i have raced, yes, with a scca national comp license, and done hpde for over 30 years, have owned an race and hpde club in California for almost 20 years and i don’t know of a single club , at least in California, that requires points by in the advanced group. Its open passing, including in turns
Also most hpde drivers time themselves

Interesting. I’ve done 70 or so events in MI, OH, and PN with most clubs that do events here and only one of them has a single run group that doesn’t do pass by points as required (still optional and most do them). I don’t like it, as a recreational driver without insurance on track, bc I never know if dibgleberry in a old, gutted M3 sees me on his ass and is willing to avoid clipping my bumper in a corner. Not worth it for a fun hobby I’m fronting the bills for and get no reward for completing that pass.


Btw, formula one drivers are timed on qualifying sessions. They go fast too one these sessions. Anyone call those Saturday qualifying sessions as “racing” or is that designation saved for the Sunday event? Probably bad example, but why not?

 

[WItoTX]

What’s parade laps have to do with it? Generally, I’m not making a position on what’s “stressful” or similar stress levels if this is what you are getting at? That’s irrelevant because the contract doesn’t says “flooring your car and full break pressure voids your warranty.” People taking this “racing language” the wrong way are apparently assuming that if you run a 50mph parade lap then you are “off roading” and “on a race track” so therefore you are racing and losing warranty coverage.

I am simply saying the contract language is not so restrictive to void you entire warranty that you paid thousands of dollars for just because you want to drive your fast car fast, on a track or on a road. They could have used restrictive language like this, “any use on a race track” but they balanced financial benefit of selling contracts over selling overly restrictive coverage terms. They don’t want to cover people with racing licenses in race events, that’s what “racing” means in motorsports. Going fast isn’t racing. In my experience, 99.5% of DE events require a point by to pass someone even in advanced. They don’t do mandatory point bys or black flags on those passing without a point by in racing.

edit: they may have included this racing language bc they are smarter than we give them credit for. It gives them plausible deniability on fraudulent denial of covered claims to the extent they may lose a case here or there to someone willing to stand up to them on the issue, but the masses will bend over and take it, letting them keep the thousands of dollars paid for coverage for no real benefit at all. I don’t practice law anymore, but if I did and was being paid six figures as in house counsel and wanted to impress a big money hungry corporation, this is the position I’d suggest to them.

It's the spirit of the term racing that I am pointing out is the problem. What if the arbitrator can't distinguish a difference between racing and HPDE?

If I am the warranty company OP is going up against, I would play a video of an HPDE event. Then I would play a video of a race event. And then ask the arbitrator, what do you see that is different? Or better yet, point out all the similarities in racing and in HPDE. And then take the position that since racing isn't capitalized in the contract, it's a nebulous term, and then point out how similar HPDE is to racing. And therefore, since it is similar, the warranty should be void for this failure.

Because both racing and HPDE is going fast on a track. Both do it with other cars doing the exact same thing in relative proximity.

And this is the point I brought up a couple pages back to OP, and I am hopeful it helped and he was able to address it.

 

[Tomster]

It's the spirit of the term racing that I am pointing out is the problem. What if the arbitrator can't distinguish a difference between racing and HPDE?

If I am the warranty company OP is going up against, I would play a video of an HPDE event. Then I would play a video of a race event. And then ask the arbitrator, what do you see that is different? Or better yet, point out all the similarities in racing and in HPDE. And then take the position that since racing isn't capitalized in the contract, it's a nebulous term, and then point out how similar HPDE is to racing. And therefore, since it is similar, the warranty should be void for this failure.

Because both racing and HPDE is going fast on a track. Both do it with other cars doing the exact same thing in relative proximity.

And this is the point I brought up a couple pages back to OP, and I am hopeful it helped and he was able to address it.

The law and contracts go by definitions and the written word. I can see the ESP folks trying to persuade the arbitrator by these tactics, but again, how is racing defined and what does the contract say? Racing is not defined in the esp contract, but it is by Ford. The OP was not racing.

 

[GT350Keith]

I've been doing HPDE for close to 40 years, and at every drivers meeting before anyone goes on the track they tell us "this is not a race. If you think it is leave". They bring this up a number of times during the meeting. If you start to think it is, they call you in and give you a talking to.

 

[BlkMach10510]

I've been doing HPDE for close to 40 years, and at every drivers meeting before anyone goes on the track they tell us "this is not a race. If you think it is leave". They bring this up a number of times during the meeting. If you start to think it is, they call you in and give you a talking to.

That is why I told him to get something from an offical stating it is not a race just in case ford/esp tries to say it is.

 

[WItoTX]

The law and contracts go by definitions and the written word. I can see the ESP folks trying to persuade the arbitrator by these tactics, but again, how is racing defined and what does the contract say? Racing is not defined in the esp contract, but it is by Ford. The OP was not racing.

Just to clarify, "Racing" is defined by Ford under the bumper to bumper warranty, right?

To be clear, I am only playing devils advocate here. IF I was Ford, I would appeal to the arbitrators sensibility. If I show a video of HPDE and racing side by side, then ask the arbitrator, what is different in these two videos in terms of what happens to the car, I think any reasonable person would struggle to name anything apart from pass by waives, no formal timing, and no racing for position. Sure there are more things. But generally that is the difference.

Then, with that established, I would make the point that what the car experiences is no different in either case. And since the forces are exactly the same, and racing is lowercase and not defined in the contract, the spirit of the word racing is what needs to be looked at. And once we look at what was the spirit of the word racing in the context of that contract, the only logical conclusion is HPDE is effectively the same as racing.

We can play the definition game all day long. If I am a Ford attorney, I am appealing to the arbitrators ability to apply common sense and logic to a situation, and keeping the arbitrator as far away from definitions as possible.

Again, I am just playing devils advocate here, and if I was Ford, that is how I am attacking this.

I am looking forward to OP's update. Hopefully it was more bowling than beer last night!

 

[WItoTX]

I've been doing HPDE for close to 40 years, and at every drivers meeting before anyone goes on the track they tell us "this is not a race. If you think it is leave". They bring this up a number of times during the meeting. If you start to think it is, they call you in and give you a talking to.

And the ones I've attended, they ask what your average lap time is so they can line you up properly.

 

[Tomster]

Just to clarify, "Racing" is defined by Ford under the bumper to bumper warranty, right?

To be clear, I am only playing devils advocate here. IF I was Ford, I would appeal to the arbitrators sensibility. If I show a video of HPDE and racing side by side, then ask the arbitrator, what is different in these two videos in terms of what happens to the car, I think any reasonable person would struggle to name anything apart from pass by waives, no formal timing, and no racing for position. Sure there are more things. But generally that is the difference.

Then, with that established, I would make the point that what the car experiences is no different in either case. And since the forces are exactly the same, and racing is lowercase and not defined in the contract, the spirit of the word racing is what needs to be looked at. And once we look at what was the spirit of the word racing in the context of that contract, the only logical conclusion is HPDE is effectively the same as racing.

We can play the definition game all day long. If I am a Ford attorney, I am appealing to the arbitrators ability to apply common sense and logic to a situation, and keeping the arbitrator as far away from definitions as possible.

Again, I am just playing devils advocate here, and if I was Ford, that is how I am attacking this.

I am looking forward to OP's update. Hopefully it was more bowling than beer last night!

No where else has Ford defined racing except in the owners manual.

 

[K4fxd]

All ford performance parts are aftermarket parts

We are not talking about ford performance and like you pointed out FP parts come with a disclaimer. The FORD esp does not come with a disclaimer for GT350's and track use.

 

[gone_n_60]

It's time...

I'm ready!

 

[luc]

We are not talking about ford performance and like you pointed out FP parts come with a disclaimer. The FORD esp does not come with a disclaimer for GT350's and track use.
[/QUOTE

You’re missing the point
The point was that a wholly owned ford subsidiary, such as ford performance or the extended warranty company can be considered by ford to be an aftermarket company

Sponsored