I saw that you posted that.... The issue is that several people have independently presented anecdotal evidence against EWC. I have read both your and Ben's defense of the company however that has not been sufficient to turn the tide of opinion. The only way I see this thing being resolved in your favor is if some longstanding members of the board (who have no financial stake with EWC) step forward and offer anecdotal evidence that EWC does in fact take care of it's customers.
Rob, You made a statement that said we wrote policies all day long and had no intention of paying. The 3 or 4 complaints are not proof of our intentions not to pay claims on Policies we write all day long. Everyday people file claims that are not covered but on the same page people also file claims that are covered and there claims are paid. The ones that don't get covered are usually upset but that comes with the teritory. You have gone out on a limb and made a statement about our intentions to defraud claimants. Show me the "strong evidence" of what our intentions were. This is about you Rob and your statements not anyone else.
I agree except for changing my words around again. There was no EVIDENCE at that point of you paying any claims. Which is 100% true. That is your opinion of what I said. I think everyone else gets what my intentions were and my same request has been repeated by dozens of users. Good night Paul and the rest of FerrariChat. Talk to you in the morning.
Mark, Turn the tide of opinion? Not my intention. Show that Rob Lay has supported an endorse a which hunt is my intention. Show that Rob Lay has made false and defamatory statements that our intention was to defraud claimants without any such knowledge is my intention. Show that Rob Lay has no ability to defend himself on a mature level is my intention. Show that the administrator of FC is unable to maintain a neutral position and lets his own personal experiences interfere in the operation of the site is my intention All proven Rob, You have this theroy that everybody believes in you and that your side is the right side, the fall will be a hard one.
Paul, Since you have mentioned specific numbers in defense of EWC, would you care to share others so they are more beneficial to the readers? If $100k (or above) was paid out, what is the total paid premiums? What is the amount of denied claims? I ask this because the number $100k really doesn't mean much on its own. I don't think it is a significant number for State Farm, for example. I don't know whether insurance companies (warranty companies) need to disclose this info to state regulators or not. Do you (EWC) have a website? Thanks
"Anecdotal" - Is this correct? There are 2 contracts which have been posted, and a letter from EWC to the the State in which they deny covering items which are specifically included in the contracts. (this is just as I understand it).
There are 15,000 member's of this board.... I'm not going to count the number of your policy holders who have spoken in this thread but there have been several negative anecdotes about your company in this thread and a few who appeared neutral and the only people defending EWC have a financial stake in the company. The point you seem to be missing is that people want to read happy stories about your company, they want to read about how FChat user "X" had a claim that was paid right away and is would recomend your company. So far there has been none of that, just some rather combative responses from you and Ben. I completely disagree with your assertion that Rob is conducting any type of witch hunt against your company. The thread was getting out of hand and Rob stepped in and at this point I think we are all a little curious about EWC's operations. If you want to continue to be combative in this thread then go right ahead but remember who the mods are......
Here is more information on ECW and the underwriting business from Ben Evans himself: http://www.flashoffroad.com/features/buyingTrucks/warranties.htm Here is their website: http://www.exoticwarranty.com/
Seems potently simple to me, if EWC have some happy customers just ask them to post a few references, no doubt in their marketing info they would have some testimonials. Surely now that the premiums have been refunded to noah the next step would be for EWC to clear the air with some proof of actual claims and happy customers and also some statistics on claims ratios etc. I think that all the agro is a waste of energy. The best way to clear the air is to post some factual evidence so that all can eat humble pie, if their is no factual evidence then we all know not to buy warranty insurance from this company and then we can get back to more pleasant threads. Why don't we allow EWC 2 days to provide some proof of claims and happy customers and then if nothing comes from them come to our own conclusions if you know what i mean.
Dave, The Companies Books are being Audited (GAAP) as we speak and the results are due in June. It is our intention to post the results on the web site to show that this is a legitimate business. There have been to many shady operations in the exotic industry and the audit was undertaken at great expense to show that we are here to stay. There will be always claims that are denied, that is a fact and with that comes pissed off clients but that is the nature of the industry. Sometimes we make mistakes and sometimes we deal badly with those situtions but this FC thread became a which hunt. I don't belive that that was Noahs intention. I had higher expectations of some. http://www.exoticwarranty.com/default.htm Paul
Mark, I could care less about your position as a Moderator. Are you are threatening me with your position? Is it because I am attacking your leader? Paul
I don't think Rob is on your side, certainly. I think he is probably on the side of the masses, but I don't think he's on Noah's side either. I definitely don't think he is unfairly against you, as you seem to think He did not say there is evidence that EWC takes money with the intent to defraud. He said there is strong evidence that EWC takes money and doesn't intend to pay claims. If it was a systematic scam operation, that would be fraud, but he did not say that, he said there is evidence (I would agree that zero satisfied customers posting is strong evidence on a site with thousands of people, and when the company claims lots of satisfied customers here). But you are ZEROING in on ONE statment he made and putting a word there that he did not write - defraud. He also tempered what he wrote with the previous and subsequent statements. He said maybe there were no valid claims submitted. Then he said maybe they do pay claims but if there is a general pattern towards not paying, it should be shown in this thread. Seems to me the guy wants to just let this go and figure out whats going on. You won't let it go and are insisting that he said something he didn't - intention to defraud. Given he did not say that, you feel he meant it, others feel he didn't. You're arguing your opinion, and it's just that, an opinion. Again, that is your opinion and you have stated it - seems nobody is agreeing with you, including me. Not because I don't like EWC, but I just think you're wrong. I think you are so hot over it because you are tied into EWC, just my opinion. Since we're talking opinions, IMO you weren't clear in your original post that you worked for EWC. You said you had a professional relationship (didn't mention it was with EWC, just Ben) and you said you had no involvement in the running of his business. Later you referred to EWC as "we" which tells me you are thinking of yourself as part of EWC, and therefore pretty biased. Furthermore you threw out a number "well over $100k in claims paid", OK, so where is the proof? One bit of proof, just one. I only bring it up because you said the specific number, nobody else. If they pull in $2MM a year in contracts, "over 100k" paid out isn't that much, especially if it's over more than a year. Without some qualification, the number isn't telling at all. And furthermore where is the proof of the $100k number? On the matter of proof, a contract or two has been posted that clearly specifies a business as the contractee. It would fall under the realm of due diligence that the contract provider would check to see who his contractee is and what they do, especially with a name that says (to me) "we rent cars". Furthermore, another person posted a letter to the attorney general (or whoever it was) stating the response from EWC. Since we've seen the contract, we KNOW that what was said in the letter was false, at least in part. Isn't this evidence of bad intent? It's not just about 3 PO'ed guys, it's about some documents that have been posted and no answers given. I sell retail on the Internet as well as through distributors and dealers, and I never get involved in web flame wars for just this reason, its hard to win, so I feel for Ben and EWC. But I still can't understand why even ONE customer could come forward? A 5% or even 10% "unhappy" contingent among the customer base would be acceptable I'd think, heck even 25% may not be TOO bad, but that would imply we'd have 20 customers saying they had no problems. But we have zero. Not a single one. To me, that IS evidence (not proof) that something may be going on. I think Rob is trying to ferret out the whole story, nothing more. Martin, I am curious if you sell or have ever sold EWC warranties and if you have been paid at all for selling/recommending EWC warranties? Not saying you're pulling something at ALL, just curious what your full disclosure is, if you care to provide it. I think everyone would love to hear from a customer (not a newly registered 1 post-er) who has positive experiences with claims being paid by EWC? Side note... I would think it would be a real b!tch to price something like a warranty on an exotic car. I doubt anyone has much data outside of Ferrari on what the annual failure rate and replacement costs are on something like a 355 or 360, etc. If I was selling warranties, I'd want to know my average payout cost, double it, and sell it for that (or maybe even more). I can't imagine $1,500 is a realistic amount to expect to pay on a 360 that is out of factory warranty. There is also obviously a big incentive to be "strict" (or more than strict) about paying out on claims. My .04 ('cause its so long)
SRT, Martin has never sold a EWC contract nor is he a dealer. FC is not a target Audience of EWC, we do not advertise on FC nor do we promote it in threads. The reason is that the cars are generally older exotics then the target market we aim for. There may be 15,000 users but only a extremely tiny fraction may have a EWC policy and we don't know if they are FChatters in the 1st place. Rob made a statement to our intentions and implied that it was not to pay claims, you better have some real strong evidence to make such a claim as is claim that we were acting to defraud. Your opinion on my position is not of great concern so no offense taken. Paul
Thanks for the links, I liked Bens post in the first link and the website looks pretty straight forward to me. I look forward to seeing the audit info as it seems EWC has nothing to hide. I think I mentioned this in a much earlier post, but I think some of this confusion could be growing pains. It is my understanding that they have only been in business for about two years. I really welcome the additional info people are adding to this thread. Also, not that anyone cares, but I'm real tired of the banter and bitterness going back and forth. Please keep it to the bare minimum, if you can.........
If he has one point, this is it. I also felt you crossed the line of neutrality with that comment ... although it seems to be pretty accurate of the whole industry and not just EWC. Positive or negative thread, I would never deal with an extra warranty company anyways ... I don't even care for the OEM one! ha! Sloan ... I suggest you calm down, now. You have been offended by some comments ... but you're sounding like a troll with your agressive comments ... Ok, ok ... I admit it, I just have to go get some more popcorn. Besides everything else ... the reliability of the information (pretty scarce anyways) is close to nothing. We have an angry guy saying they paid in excess of 100,000$ in claims, others they were denied claims for dubious reasons ... hey, if I read it on the internet, it must be real!! All that's left is a subjective feeling. And that feeling tells me there is more meat in the nay-sayers' comments.
i'm not trying to stir the pot. rather i'm just wondering why a company whose honesty with regard to customers is being questioned is being taken at face value re: the $100k comment. as well, the letter by good ole cheryl which was chock full o ***** didn't help the credibility of employees of the company who wish to just throw out $100k in claims paid numbers. additionally, hopefully those GAAP results will have an expense line under "claims paid". otherwise, they'll just show EWC makes money which no one would find hard to believe if in fact it turns out they just collect money while not paying out any.
Yes No, I ban people who cannot seem to get along well with the community. Your behavior in the "Kermit" issue was more than enough to draw my eye to your behavior. The way you have conducted yourself in this thread has contributed to that unfavorable impression. Conduct yourself accordingly. witch hunt
