Paul Your or Ben's refusal to answer my questions speak for itself. While you Ben and Cheryl continue to ignore amongst yourselves the rest of us will make a decision whether or no to use or recommend EWC. The lack of any satisfied customers to post and other poster's who have had unsatisfactory business dealings with Ben remain unrefuted as well. Paul What part of CRIMINAL FRAUD don't you understand? Cheryl's letter to the AG on behalf of Ben's Co. is, as I have stated and neither she, Ben nor anyone has refuted, remains IMO CRIMINAL FRAUD. Cheryl's letter to the AG. Claiming that exhaust valves, which are clearly a part of the valve train, are not covered. IMO once again a clear case to deceive a governmental official. (Which as Martha learned can have serious consequences) What part of that is not intention to deceive? What part of stating that they are not a covered part when they clearly are isn't fraud? What part of lying to a governmental investigatory official isn't criminal fraud? Please, as their representative tell us all how I'm wrong. You may want to take a deep breath before you get yourself into very serious trouble by attempting to raise money for a Co. that has committed these acts. If I'm wrong about any of the above please state why. Jim
This is not quite the case: First, it was said it was WELL over $100,000 Second it depends on how many customers they have Third a blown belt is mostly the result of failed scheduled maintenance or misuse of the car. In the rare instances belts have snapped because of parts failor or other unforseen things (i recall 2 in 5 years on this board of 16,000 users), it would be highly unlikly that those two would have been warranty holders. By the numbers game it is unlikely. And then it is a $20K repair not $30K. Forth, CATs do not cost $10,000 for a 355. You need a better parts supplier. Call me! Fifth: Cats would not be covered in the first place since they are part of the exhaust system and are USE items like tires and by that would not be covered in the first place. However they are covered under Federal Law by the manufacturer in the first 7 years under EPA laws. Fifth and a half : If you drive the car with a bad CAt and overheat the engine the resulting repair would not be covered (see misuse and neglect). Sixth: most repairs on my cars that I had over the years have been due to bad service, misuse and neglect. none of which are covered. I can pinpoint down maybe 4-5 repairs covered under a possible warranty agreement and those would have amounted to not more than $10,000, of which I would have denied $2000 since it happened on race cars and they would be excluded as well. On over 50 cars in the last 3 years I would have paid a lot more in premium than I would have gotten for the valve guide job. My point: I don't see a point in getting a warranty.
I agree totally. $3K would go so far in maintenance in a year. You could change all the fluids and even fix a few minor problems with $3k. Especially if you DIY.
WELL that clears it right up...... It was more that $100,000 but how much was it less than? For purposes of fairness I want to see all further references in this thread worded as "Less that 7 trillion dollars" rather than this wimpy little "more that $100,000" crap.
Fraud can be proven by subsequent behavior. If indeed they aren't paying claims on a systematic basis, a court could consider that to be evidence of fraudulent intent. Despite Ben & Martin's posts, I have yet to see the name of one satisfied customer. Anyone here happy with the service??? Mike550: can't you post here without insulting anyone? Your comments about Martin added nothing to the argument. Art
I never threaten to litigate, yesterday I meant it and I will. I have been truthful to EWC in my disclosures and not only I have provided information two separate Ferrari service centers have provided information. I have all my discussions with EWC through paper trail (emails and correspondence). If an American Express inquiry cannot determine EWC's mode of operation doesn't mean you are legitimately denying the claim. The file is pretty thick and my counsel has had a copy ever since and he is well aware of this thread. He had advised me that I could file but also said I could take the route of Department of Insurance/AG which I did. I keep a log of all my phone conversation, I spoke with Merry Carmichael at Premier Sports Cars on March 8, 2005 at 9:50 AM for 5 minutes...Others can call her and ask her about Exotic Warranty Company and what she told me on that day on the phone when I said I am filing a complaint with state officials regarding EWC and I wanted to let her know because she was one of the references I spoke with on behalf of EWC. Does my letter to Mr. Evans on February 3rd require a answer...I gave EWC ample opportunity to refund me the premium. Sometimes people make mistakes and want out, why couldn't he HONOR that? The issue at hand can't be ignored and you sir cannot spin this.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. So, we have the official word from the representative of EWC that many on FC are not customers, do not love the company, and have not had claims approved and paid. It would make me question why such a statement was made in the first place. The only other thing standing out in my mind is that it seems a claim is being made that we don't know the whole story regarding the gentleman who intends to sue. But, we do know (from posted documentation) some things, like: -A contract was written in the name of a rental company, with a relatively obvious name, which was not honored. -A contract was written which specifically states "manifolds" (not manifolD) and a claim was denied on that item for two claimants -A letter was written by a representative of EWC which specifically contradicted a written contract they had with a customer. Knowingly? Not sure, but how can a representative of the company not know what their warranty covers? And ignorance would not be a valid defense. We hear, from EWC, about lots of other circumstances that surround the warranty claim, and statements of "if you only knew the whole truth". Well, if there was more to it, I'd think Cheryl would have disclosed it in her letter to the state, but she did not. She stated two things. First that exhaust valves were not covered, even though it specifically said "valvetrain". Second, that no pre-inspection was done and warranty coverage never took effect. The thing about the second statement is that the poster says he has a letter stating no pre-inspection was necessary (I believe him that he has such a letter), and additionally if no pre-inspection was done, why not cancel the policy and send the guy his money back, or at least notify him that his policy was NOT in effect. Seems that never happened. And regardless, what about the fact that Cheryl appears to have made a false statement to the state in her letter, and waht about the fact that two posters had exhaust manifold coverage denied when the contract clearly states "manifolds". Sorry, but the assertion that "there's a lot you guys dont know" doesn't even come CLOSE to accounting for all the PROOF that has so far been posted in this thread. I am interested to hear Ben's take on this, and I am also interested to hear the answers to Napolis' questions. In the absence of answers, people will draw their own conclusions.
BBBBBBBWWWWHAHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!! let me disect your comment here if I may.......... you are saying all these successful, intelligent, Ferrari owners (which excemptlifies the best of the best), wouldn't know how to engage your clients in a respectful and degnified way........ are you calling us names......'this group' what you mean......we don't shower or something......I object being in the same group as that kitty fish sticks avatar.............=-) moderator he called me a name.........
Here's the email trail with EWC regarding the 115-point inspection. The tail end of the email was purposely omitted because it was reference to EWC providing me with four of their references. As I indicated in the email when I signed the contract the car was in service for belts and that invoice can also be presented. There are more letters and emails which could only compromise EWC's position in this case. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Sorry, I missed that the first time I read it. So, which is it? Are they denying the claim because exhaust valves are not covered under the contract - or are they denying the claim because the inspection report has not been returned before filing a claim?
I think you should read the letter carefully again...there are three distinct points in the letter which I have provided evidence to State AG earlier in April.
So it appears that EWC: 1) claims the exhaust valves are part of the exhaust system, instead of part of the valve train 2) claims an inspection was required, when they already submitted a letter to the policy holder waiving the need for an inspection 3) claims the 10 day dispute was not acted on by the policy holder, when in fact a dispute was filed the day after the claim was denied.
Yes, I understand - I'm not against you. For me, the letter is confusing/contradictory. IMO, they don't need to give 2 reasons in the letter to deny the claim - they should only need one reason - and if one of those reasons is the inspection - then there is no need to even mention that exhaust valves are not covered - because the "claimed" lack of "needed" inspection would supercede that.
I just read this post and I will comment by saying EWC was obligated to ask and/or investigate my situation prior to denying my claim. They have my contact information and my mechanic's contact information. They could have written and requested detailed report and/or ask for second opinion. They did none of the above. They cannot blanketly deny every component in the car because it is somehow connected to exhaust system. I am not a lawyer but I have been around long enough that I too understand their wrongdoing. They have shown bad faith breach of contract by issuing false statements without any investigation to deny the warranty coverage. Edit: If they did investigate they disclosed nothing to me when asked in writing on February 3, 2005 or to AG in their March 17, 2005 letter.
