...or at least is at risk of recalling a 16 million! --- Ford document: Millions of vehicles have fire risk part KISSIMMEE, Florida (CNN) -- Early this year, Laura Hernandez nudged her husband, Nestor Oyola, as he slept in their Kissimmee home and asked him to put the Ford Expedition he had bought her the day before into the garage. She did not want to risk leaving it on the street, where it might be vandalized. "That was my dream, to have a Ford Expedition," she recalled to CNN about the $22,000 Eddie Bauer 2001 model SUV -- green with gold trim and leather seats. Oyola moved the Expedition and they went to sleep. After years of sharing a single car, the couple -- who moved five years ago to the United States from Puerto Rico -- were finally living the American dream: They owned two vehicles and their home. At 5 the next morning, half an hour after her husband had driven his SUV to work, Hernandez was awakened by barking from Chakuil, their Chihuahua mix. "He saved our lives," said Hernandez, who smelled smoke and roused her 15-year-old daughter, Rotsenmary. They had time to grab only the dog and their pet birds before flames spread from the garage and engulfed the house. Rotsenmary suffered a second-degree burn to her left leg; the charred remains of their 6-month-old cat -- Beethoven -- were found in a corner; the vehicle, the house and its contents were a total loss. A fire investigator, hired by their auto insurance company, said the blaze was caused by a cruise-control deactivation switch in the SUV -- a type of switch that Ford installed in millions of its vehicles from 1992 until 2003. An Iowa family is suing Ford over the switch, claiming it was the likely cause of a fire in the family's 1996 F-150 parked in an attached garage that spread to their house. A 74-year-old woman died in the fire and the house was destroyed. Ford, however, says the fire did not originate in the F-150. (Full story) Several fire investigators hired by major insurance companies and auto engineers consulted by CNN say the switch is causing some Ford vehicles to ignite. Expanded investigation The $20.57 switch shuts off the cruise control when the driver firmly steps on the brakes. The switch is located under the hood of the vehicle and is attached to the brake master cylinder on one end and wired to the cruise control on the other. On most of its models, Ford designed the switch to be powered -- or "hot" -- at all times, even when the vehicle is off and the key is removed from the ignition. Inside the switch, a thin film barrier separates brake fluid from the switch's electrical components. Investigators say fires can occur when the film cracks and brake fluid from the master cylinder seeps into the electrical side of the switch. Ford has already recalled more than 1 million vehicles in two separate recalls to replace the switch. The first recall was in May 1999, affecting 279,000 Crown Victorias, Grand Marquises and Town Cars for model years 1992 and 1993. The second, issued in January 2005, affected 792,000 vehicles, including model year 2001 F-Series SuperCrews and 2000 Expeditions, Navigators and F-150 pickups. But a Ford document obtained by CNN shows the same or similar switch was installed in a total of 16 million vehicles, far beyond what was recalled. Those vehicles include: Mark VII/VIII from 1994-1998 Taurus/Sable and Taurus SHO 2.3 L 1993-1995 Econoline 1992-2003 F-Series 1993-2003 Windstar 1994-2003 Explorer without IVD 1995-2003 Explorer Sport/Sport Trac 2002-2003 Expedition 1997-2003 Ranger 1995-2003 In March, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an expanded investigation into more than 3.7 million of the vehicles. NHTSA says it has received 559 complaints of spontaneous fires, 253 of them in unrecalled models, and its latest investigation includes the 1995 model years of the F-150, Expedition and Lincoln Navigator vehicles. Ford says it has initiated its own investigation and is cooperating with the NHTSA probe. "We have identified specific populations of vehicles in which the speed-control deactivation switches have had increasing rates of failures and fires," said Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley in a written response to questions submitted by CNN. "When we have seen the fire reports increasing, we have recalled those vehicles and replaced those switches. Ford has used the basic switch design in a large number of vehicles and the risk of fire related to the switch is much different in those certain populations that we have recalled." She added, "It is important to understand that all speed control systems are not identical in Ford vehicles. ... In those populations with an increasing fire report rate, we stopped using the switch through the recall process. ... The switch has performed well in many models for many years." In another statement to CNN, Kinley said "we have been asked why we have not expanded the recall. The last thing we want to do is make an important safety decision on incorrect or incomplete information." Kinley also said, "We have not determined at this time that there is a defect with the switch, but for reasons we still do not understand the switch is failing ... and we are trying to understand why." Ford no longer uses switch But, in a recall notice to owners of 2000 F-150s, Expeditions, Navigators and 2001 F-150 SuperCrews, the company seemed less equivocal about the switch. The "switch may overheat, smoke or burn which could result in an underhood fire," it said. "This condition may occur either when the vehicle is parked or when it is being operated, even if the speed control is not in use." The company stopped using the switch altogether as of the 2004 year model, and is now using a new design. Meanwhile, the Oyola-Hernandez family has hired a lawyer to reach a financial settlement with Ford but have not filed a lawsuit against the company. The company says it has not yet investigated their auto insurance claim, but notes that the insurance industry reports about 100,000 noncollision fires per year involving nearly all makes and models sold. "Simply because we have allegations of fire doesn't mean they are necessarily linked to the speed-control deactivation switch," Kinley said. The charred remains of their house were recently demolished. But, the family has not been able to rebuild. After the fire, they moved in with Hernandez's mother, who lives nearby. Since then, after reinstating their home insurance, they have moved into a rented house. Their insurance company sent them $120,000 but rebuilding their home is estimated to cost $185,000. They are hoping Ford will reimburse them for the difference. They are, once again, a one-car family. This one also is a Ford -- a 1997 Explorer -- and it, too, contains the suspect switch, which has not been recalled. The family parks it on the street instead of the garage. CNN Investigative Producer Pia Malbran contributed to this story
I just watched a full report on this on CNN about an hour ago. Quite a stupid design if you ask me. Why would a cruze control swith need "hot" power at all times? The cruze only works at about 40 miles per hour anyway. And why in gods name would you need to complicate the system in such away? Every since cruze control has been installed in a car, the shut off has been incorpperated in the brake light switch..with nothing to do with the hydrulic system of the car at all. Now they decide to get cute and this is the result. The old system worked just fine, they tampered with it,and now I think ford should pay the price.
Hmmm.... so not only did they not pay their insurance bill on time, they were underinsured! That's special.
There's no way the insurance company would cut them a check for a house if their policy was lapsed at the time of the fire... You know that...!
Without knowing any more details, I couldn't say for sure. But it sure SOUNDS like that's what happened.
i completely agree...! But i've never known an insurance company to have a heart and say, "Oh, okay... Your house burned down, so we'll cut you a six figure check - even though your policy lapsed...!"
Insurance companies live to say "F-you" when you're already down low and need some help. "You bought the house for 120k? So what if its now worth 200k" ( How many of YOU GUYS have bought more insurance in the last 8 months because everything in the housing industry now cost twice as much? Booming market). Come on... you guys all know this... As your car goes down in value, the insurance company screws you. As your house goes up in value, the insurance company screws you. You get really sick and can't work.... insurance company drops you.
If a major auto maker is at fault, it's a pretty even bet they'll make it back and get some free publicity in the meantime. C.
You're talking about market value. The issue at hand is replacement cost. The people should have house insured at what it would cost to replace it. Not the market value. edit: They may do things entirely differently in FL than they do in TX. I have no clue how they do things in FL. If you have questions, contact your local agent.
So they bought market value insurance? Mystery solved. Why do insurance companies even offer this type, if its going to leave people in a bind if something happens? I just bought my house 5 months ago in Florida. Now that the dust has cleared with the move, I have to check to see what my agent sold me? Sorry FarmerDave to bust on the insurance industry.... (but they do make it confusing for us ordinary folks). I need to get my own business into the insurance industry next. You're the only guys making money regardless of if economy goes up or down, or Chinese steal all our Manufacturing jobs & intellectual property. The Insurance industry still has the biggest fancy new office buildings in every major city You guys are rolling in the $$$
My best guess is that they probably only bought enough insurance to satisfy the requirements of their lender. One possible scenario: they purchased a house for $120,000 that was 30 years old. The mortgage company only required them to carry enough insurance to pay off the note in the event of a loss. The cost to clear the charred rubble, and build a new house of the same size and of the same materials may well exceed the amount of money they borrowed to buy the house. "You want me to pay for $185,000 worth of coverage... but my mortgage company is only telling me I need $120,000! I'm already barely qualifying for this house! You're smoking crack, Mr. Insurance Man." The company I write for requires us to insure houses for replacement cost. Even if it's double what the market value is. It makes it tough to compete against the guy down the street who will go ahead and insure them at a lower coverage amount. But in the end, much better business practice to insure at replacement cost.
Ford will be eating a lot of costs with this problem, maybe they'll go down like GM is? I'm with that guy above who said it is a stupid design, no need to f'n reinvent the wheel. Some lady from Deland, FL is checking out to my my mom's house (in Orlando) and she said that last year the 3 hurricanes destroyed her house ($400k house) and insurance didn't pay her at all. Some guy came in and just took over the mortgage and now it's his place. I don't know if her story is true, but that's all she told us when she was looking at our house yesterday.
I saw this yesterday as well - man oh man what a poor design.... How would you like to go out to your car 12 hours after you last drove it - and find it in flames... I can imagine the first several dozen that this happen to - would have be on arson or other reason that the car caught fire... The odd thing - I did not know that break fluid was flammable... Or is it that it is shorting when the break fluid touches the hot wire causing it to catch the wires/housing on fire?
Brake fluid is flammable. My friend showed me how. He took some regular brake fluid from K-mart and put it inside a 2 liter bottle cut in half. Then added powdered solid chlorine tablets. It took about 15 minutes, but a 7 foot flame came out of the top and lasted a few seconds.
This doesn't automatically prove brake fluid is flammable, it just shows that it is chemically reactive with chlorine.
They might, if they thought the claim against Ford was good enough, they might have wanted the family to subrogate their claim. Basically, the insurance company might have been looking to "buy" a highly profitable lawsuit.
ANYWAY - Just love the spin Ford is putting on this. In a nutshell: Well, we're recalling lots and lots of them, but there's nothing wrong, and therefore, we don't owe you.