F*&^%$% Warranty Company!
Discussion
My 944 started overheating the other week, so I got it trailered to my local specialist (PCT in Coventry, who have been great) to find out what's wrong.
They do a compression test, and it shows a blown head gasket (as feared). No problems, I thought, I've got a warranty that'll cover it. Warranty company are informed, and say that they want to send out an engineer to inspect it. Post inspection, they say they won't pay up, as gasket blowing was caused by corrosion on the cylinder head. PCT say it's a bit "Chicken and the Egg" as to which caused which, but warranty companies engineer claims the car must have been run for a very long time without anti-freeze/corrosion inhibitor in the coolant.
As you can understand I'm now more than a touch pissed off - I've got a worthless warranty I paid £350 for, and a big fucking bill looming I can't pay. Does anyone have any ideas if I can make the warranty company cough up?
They do a compression test, and it shows a blown head gasket (as feared). No problems, I thought, I've got a warranty that'll cover it. Warranty company are informed, and say that they want to send out an engineer to inspect it. Post inspection, they say they won't pay up, as gasket blowing was caused by corrosion on the cylinder head. PCT say it's a bit "Chicken and the Egg" as to which caused which, but warranty companies engineer claims the car must have been run for a very long time without anti-freeze/corrosion inhibitor in the coolant.
As you can understand I'm now more than a touch pissed off - I've got a worthless warranty I paid £350 for, and a big fucking bill looming I can't pay. Does anyone have any ideas if I can make the warranty company cough up?
This is the problem with warranties.
"Wear and tear" or "insufficient maintenance" can be good get-out clauses. Sometimes justifiably (which is why they steer clear of older cars if they can).
You need a brand new car, full main dealer servicing and manufacturer's warranties for them to be watertight.
In your case, I'd suggest pleading your case nicely, maybe they'll pay out of goodwill. Good luck
"Wear and tear" or "insufficient maintenance" can be good get-out clauses. Sometimes justifiably (which is why they steer clear of older cars if they can).
You need a brand new car, full main dealer servicing and manufacturer's warranties for them to be watertight.
In your case, I'd suggest pleading your case nicely, maybe they'll pay out of goodwill. Good luck
No go on the pleading nicely front already tried that (I never phone up and go ballistic) they've just flatly refused on the corrosion grounds.
Only ray of hope is that as the head needs machining, it'll have to go off to a machine shop, and PCT have said if I ask the machine shop for their opinion on what has caused what, and they reckon corrosion is as a result of blown gasket, I might be in a stronger position, but things do not look good. Looks like I need to find at least £1k, probably more (and that's just hoping the head is repairable
)
Only ray of hope is that as the head needs machining, it'll have to go off to a machine shop, and PCT have said if I ask the machine shop for their opinion on what has caused what, and they reckon corrosion is as a result of blown gasket, I might be in a stronger position, but things do not look good. Looks like I need to find at least £1k, probably more (and that's just hoping the head is repairable
)Classic. I bought a warranty for my MGB many years ago. The car had done 88k miles and the trader I bought it off sold me the warranty. I blew the engine up in France, claimed on the warranty and they used the old "wear and tear" excuse.
I told the warranty company that I was going to take them to court for selling me something that was totally inappropriate for the purpose (i.e. a warranty on a high mileage vehicle) and they refunded me the warranty cost very quickly indeed.
At Brands a few weeks later I met the MD of the company who was in the process of driving his Countach into the back of a large white van - clearly he wanted to get out of the circuit without anyone finding him. I gave him a piece of my mind and physically stopped him from parking his car until I'd extracted an apology from him for the aggravation his company had caused me. I do not believe that the company is operating any more.
So why not try that tack?
I told the warranty company that I was going to take them to court for selling me something that was totally inappropriate for the purpose (i.e. a warranty on a high mileage vehicle) and they refunded me the warranty cost very quickly indeed.
At Brands a few weeks later I met the MD of the company who was in the process of driving his Countach into the back of a large white van - clearly he wanted to get out of the circuit without anyone finding him. I gave him a piece of my mind and physically stopped him from parking his car until I'd extracted an apology from him for the aggravation his company had caused me. I do not believe that the company is operating any more.
So why not try that tack?
Can you not get the warranty company to accept another inspection done on it by an independant 3rd party?
I would imagine the inspection done by the warranty companies people would't exactly be the most neutral methinks.
If they agree then this inspection might favour you - if not then you havn't not lost anything else except the charge for the inspection - which wouldn't be that expensive.
You could also seek legal advice on the wording of the warranty - sometimes just the hint that someone is going down that route is enough to get at least a good will jesture on payment.
Good luck.
Ro.
I would imagine the inspection done by the warranty companies people would't exactly be the most neutral methinks.
If they agree then this inspection might favour you - if not then you havn't not lost anything else except the charge for the inspection - which wouldn't be that expensive.
You could also seek legal advice on the wording of the warranty - sometimes just the hint that someone is going down that route is enough to get at least a good will jesture on payment.
Good luck.
Ro.
roshambo said:
You could also seek legal advice on the wording of the warranty - sometimes just the hint that someone is going down that route is enough to get at least a good will jesture on payment.
BliarOut said:
Can you get a piccie of the head? You might be able to spot thich way the corrosion went depending on the markings.
Cheers for all the replys guys - my brother suggested much the same as above. Including calling his solicitor (family friend) for a bit of gratis advice. General advice was as above, and I have phoned them asking for copies of all documentation and pictures relating to my claim and policy. They took my phone number in case of problems, so we shall see what happens...
BliarOut said:
Service history...... Was it a private sale or did you buy it from the garage, with or without the warranty at point of sale?
Don't forget the sale of goods act!
Service history was good, bought through a brokers, who sold me the warranty in addition to the car (i.e. warranty was sold seperate to the car - I was told this was as they needed to confirm some details with the warranty company hence it not happening together)
If the service history is good you could well be able to backtrack through it and prove it had the coolant maintained. Dotting the i's and crossing the t's is important in these sorts of case.
Don't get mad, look at it as a game of chess. Just gather all the evidence you can and prepare a concrete rebuttal and they should fold.
I've just got a brand new TV despite mine being out of warranty. Took a little time, but a thorough approach often pays dividends.
This is one of those cases where no doesn't necessarily mean no, it just means they would rather not pay. Doesn't mean they won't actually pay!
Don't get mad, look at it as a game of chess. Just gather all the evidence you can and prepare a concrete rebuttal and they should fold.
I've just got a brand new TV despite mine being out of warranty. Took a little time, but a thorough approach often pays dividends.
This is one of those cases where no doesn't necessarily mean no, it just means they would rather not pay. Doesn't mean they won't actually pay!
BliarOut said:
If the service history is good you could well be able to backtrack through it and prove it had the coolant maintained. Dotting the i's and crossing the t's is important in these sorts of case.
Cheers for that.
I've just been back through the service history (since 2000, when it had a lot of work done, such as new cam belt etc) and although it seems complete, no specific mention is made of the coolant, other than "all fluid levels checked and topped up where needed" so I don't think I can definatively prove that coolant was kept with correct mix of anti-freeze/corrosion inhibitor?
I'm not being negative, just trying to do what you suggested and view it as a game of chess, trying to predict their next moves...
Fatboy said:
If the service history is good you could well be able to backtrack through it and prove it had the coolant maintained. Dotting the i's and crossing the t's is important in these sorts of case.
Cheers for that.
I've just been back through the service history (since 2000, when it had a lot of work done, such as new cam belt etc) and although it seems complete, no specific mention is made of the coolant, other than "all fluid levels checked and topped up where needed" so I don't think I can definatively prove that coolant was kept with correct mix of anti-freeze/corrosion inhibitor?
I'm not being negative, just trying to do what you suggested and view it as a game of chess, trying to predict their next moves...
To counter that move, my response would be to write pointing out that I have documentary evidence from the service history that shows "all fluid levels checked and topped up where needed". With this in mind it would appear that your engineer must be mistaken.
Yeah, "Fluid levels checked"...could this be cross-referenced to a service bullet-point that says something like "checked for level and correct mixture"?....also, could an independant engineer look for other tell-tale signs of antifreeze being present?...ie., in his opinion, as antifreezee is also a summer coolant, the lack of overheating (no rusty water marks in header tank, etc) shows that antifreeze was present....if you get my meaning?!
For the warranty company to inspect this, I'm assuming that the head is already off of the block?...or are they looking at surface corrosion on the outside of the head casting?
For the warranty company to inspect this, I'm assuming that the head is already off of the block?...or are they looking at surface corrosion on the outside of the head casting?
I never understand this stuff...
I am assuming you bought the car secondhand and that you took out a warranty when you bought it..? If that is the case the warranty company should have checked the car over for it's state at the time of sale and agreed their position.
Thus any claim you make is after the point of sale. It should not matter at all if your claim was caused by something that happened outside of your ownership of the car for two reasons: 1) The cause wasn't in the period for which you are paying a warranty. 2) That is the whole point of taking out a ued car warranty. God - do they think we are all stupid or something..?
Frankly if they haven't done their homework regarding condition of car - tough cheese. They have to pay - provided you can prove that you have always maintained the car to an adequate level. The use of the phrase "my local specialist" suggests that you do. They have said they won't pay because it hasn't had coolant in it. Prove that it had coolant in at the time of failure and second that you have amlways maintained to keep coolant in the engine.
Once you can do that, if they still won't cough up, sue them. Simple as. Sooner we get these bloody sharks away from the business the better.
My personal opinion is that it has never been worth my while to take out a secondhand warrranty for just this reason. Once the car is outside of the manufacturers warranty there is a very high probablity of systems failure (its called systems engineering...) and an even smaller probability of a warranty claims company paying out - particularly if they haven't bothered to assess the condition of the car at the time of the sale of warranty.
Sorry for the rant- this sort of thing just really winds me up!
I am assuming you bought the car secondhand and that you took out a warranty when you bought it..? If that is the case the warranty company should have checked the car over for it's state at the time of sale and agreed their position.
Thus any claim you make is after the point of sale. It should not matter at all if your claim was caused by something that happened outside of your ownership of the car for two reasons: 1) The cause wasn't in the period for which you are paying a warranty. 2) That is the whole point of taking out a ued car warranty. God - do they think we are all stupid or something..?
Frankly if they haven't done their homework regarding condition of car - tough cheese. They have to pay - provided you can prove that you have always maintained the car to an adequate level. The use of the phrase "my local specialist" suggests that you do. They have said they won't pay because it hasn't had coolant in it. Prove that it had coolant in at the time of failure and second that you have amlways maintained to keep coolant in the engine.
Once you can do that, if they still won't cough up, sue them. Simple as. Sooner we get these bloody sharks away from the business the better.
My personal opinion is that it has never been worth my while to take out a secondhand warrranty for just this reason. Once the car is outside of the manufacturers warranty there is a very high probablity of systems failure (its called systems engineering...) and an even smaller probability of a warranty claims company paying out - particularly if they haven't bothered to assess the condition of the car at the time of the sale of warranty.
Sorry for the rant- this sort of thing just really winds me up!
Surely they cannot prove beyond doubt that it didn't have coolent in it.
In a court of law you dont have to prove your innocence - they have to prove your guilt.
Can they prove 100% that the failure was down to lack of coolent ? Then can they prove 100% that you didn't have coolent in the system. Hardly.
If the world was that black & white then life would be simpler. However its not, but I would fight this one to the end. If you have free legal advice then shoot off a strongly worded letter with all the facts laid out.
Ro.
In a court of law you dont have to prove your innocence - they have to prove your guilt.
Can they prove 100% that the failure was down to lack of coolent ? Then can they prove 100% that you didn't have coolent in the system. Hardly.
If the world was that black & white then life would be simpler. However its not, but I would fight this one to the end. If you have free legal advice then shoot off a strongly worded letter with all the facts laid out.
Ro.
I vowed a long time ago NEVER to use an aftermarket warranty company again. They all seem to have the same "pay out only as a last resort" attitude.
A few years ago my wifes BMW, popped its radiator. She phoned the warranty company (I was at work), who said "no, not covered". Consequently, she got the work done by our local BMW dealer, and paid for it herself. When i got home, and checked the warranty documents, I found that the radiator was indeed covered. We phoned the warranty company the following day, who then said, "sorry, we won't pay, because you didn't get authorisation from us before having the work done"
Without going into all the details, it was only when we threatened legal action that they agreed to pay up "as a show of goodwill"
A few years ago my wifes BMW, popped its radiator. She phoned the warranty company (I was at work), who said "no, not covered". Consequently, she got the work done by our local BMW dealer, and paid for it herself. When i got home, and checked the warranty documents, I found that the radiator was indeed covered. We phoned the warranty company the following day, who then said, "sorry, we won't pay, because you didn't get authorisation from us before having the work done"
Without going into all the details, it was only when we threatened legal action that they agreed to pay up "as a show of goodwill"
These things are just another sort of insurance policy. And the essence of insurance is that it is a bet between you and the company that underwrites it. In the event that the subject of the wager (breakdown) occurs they [may] pay out. But in order to make the product seem attractive they have to set the premium low in spite of the risk that most payouts will substantially exceed the stake (sorry, premium). So they have to find a way to influence odds in their favour so that they still make a profit and they do that by setting the terms in such a way that they can avoid having to pay out. I suggest that you look at this www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ for info about taking your dispute forward.
On a different tack it is worth bearing in mind that antifreeze is used in modern engines as much to inhibit corrosion as to prevent freezing. This inhibition property does not last for ever which is why the coolant needs to be change at set intervals. It isn't sufficient for the coolant to just be topped up so I fear that is what you need to find evidence of.
Good luck,
Guy.
On a different tack it is worth bearing in mind that antifreeze is used in modern engines as much to inhibit corrosion as to prevent freezing. This inhibition property does not last for ever which is why the coolant needs to be change at set intervals. It isn't sufficient for the coolant to just be topped up so I fear that is what you need to find evidence of.
Good luck,
Guy.
spenny_b said:
Yeah, "Fluid levels checked"...could this be cross-referenced to a service bullet-point that says something like "checked for level and correct mixture"?....also, could an independant engineer look for other tell-tale signs of antifreeze being present?...ie., in his opinion, as antifreezee is also a summer coolant, the lack of overheating (no rusty water marks in header tank, etc) shows that antifreeze was present....if you get my meaning?!
For the warranty company to inspect this, I'm assuming that the head is already off of the block?...or are they looking at surface corrosion on the outside of the head casting?
Cheers for the replies.
The head is already off the block, and PCT (local specialist) have said the head needs to go off to a machine shop to get skimmed and possibly welded as corrosion is very bad in the area the gasket blew, so I'm thinking that getting the machine shop's professional opinion when they look at it to fix it is probably a good way forward...
I also like the approach of stressing that the car has always had sufficient coolant in it during my ownership, and that anything before that would be irrelevant as the Warranty company should have inspected it...
I should also add that the warranty only covers up to £1000, but I felt it was worth it to cover unforseen expenses such as this
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff