Noah and Ben, I think you both stated your positions clearly. I hope you work this out to a fair and honest conclusion and post the outcome. BUT, and this is important, I strongly feel this thread should be left intact. Ben, if you feel your acting in good faith, you should have no reason to want it removed. It is beneficial to all fchats to learn, read, and form their own conclusions on who they want to do business with. Removing your statements would be a disservice to you and other fchaters.
I just looked at my contract, and it says "Extensive coverage for any exotics such as Ferrari, Lamboghini, Bently, etc. This is the ultimate coverage for any exotic." When I submitted a minor claim it was not covered. Ferrari service manager said it would have been covered by a factory Ferrari warranty. When I spoke to Cheryl she said if it wasn't listed it wasn't covered. Since this is the policy, if you look at the contract literally, then you will see there are a lot of parts that are not listed and therefore not covered. Forget about "Extensive coverage", and "Ultimate coverage for any exotic", and what the sales person tells you on the phone when selling you the contract. None of those things count when I attempted to make a claim. So that is their policy, which is their choice. I think anyone considering such a policy with EWC or any other company needs to understand what is hype, what is contract, and how a company interprets their policy may not be what you expect (ie 'manifolds'). For me, this tells me a lot about how a company stands behind their product, and if I want to continue using their products or not.
She's not an "employee" if she's a relative or being paid cash under the table, like small companies frequently do for the hired help. I am confident she worked there when Noah said she did even if there's no official paper trail. Ken
Noah will promptly post if he receives an overnight check from EWC, because he's a standup guy. The fact that he is willing to resolve this privately rather than dragging this out also speaks to his character. Of course, the irony of another check coming from EWC can't be missed. - However, in no way, shape or form should this thread be deleted. Businesses, as much as individuals, are victims of their own actions - or lack thereof. Although the situation may ultimately be resolved amicably - and will be noted on this thread as such - the chain of events should remain public, for all to draw their own conclusions.
Hey Ben, Nice to hear you "hang" on the lamborghini section. Seems you bought it with money from customers you don't pay for their claims.
"She's not an "employee" if she's a relative or being paid cash under the table" KEN HELP ME ON THAT COMMENT.. THE PART I DONT UNDERSTAND " SHES NOT AN EMPLOYEE IF SHES A RELATIVE" I HAVE 2 NEPHEWS WORKING FOR ME AND THEY ARE ON THE BOOKS AND LEGIT ARE THEY STILL MY EMPLOYEES??
Unlike others, everything between EWC and I have been in writing so I can post emails and letters why they continuously denied my claims. She is their claims person (her title is Senior Underwriter) and just like the movie rainmaker she is probably instructed to deny every claim. I have a letter from Cheryl to State of Alabama that describes why my claim was denied and I will give Ben a chance before posting the letter and my contact on the forum.
I think he meant that she could very well have been working for him prior to when he says she was, but it could have been a secretive employment to avoid paying taxes. This is common when family members are employees.
What I meant is that small business frequently get relatives to work who have no paper trail to avoid taxes. The way this guy runs his business makes me think this is the case. I doubt Noah made up all these conversations with Sheryl (Cheryl?) yet Ben seems confident he can prove she wasn't working for him at the time. I believe he thinks this will help him in an open court to discredit Noah, yet it will likely just call the IRS down on him. I am not saying we need to DNA test your two employees to prove them nephews! The fact you have them on the books is likely reflective of how honestly you run your business. I cannot say I have the same feeling about Ben. Ken
Pretty Pathetic Ben. How easily you crumble....Refund...hmmm. I have never received a refund from someone that was not guilty. I guess if you run your business the way it should you wouldn't have to.
HAHAHAHA! Oh, that's ripe, that is. Sorry kid, it's too late now! The cat is way out of the bag and you're left holding it.
"Many here are customers, many here love my company, and many here have had claims approved and paid." (quote from Ben) I was wondering where the many lovers of Ben's company and many claimants are? A few unsolicited customer responses would be appropriate here. I hope they will come forward.
Why do I think that this will begin a masse exodus of EWC policy holders seeking to be released from their contracts will full refunds. Interesting that Ben chose this resolution publicly. I consider Noah a personal friend, as we have done many social things together over the past year. If nothing else, he is articulate and reasonable. A person shld not need a lawyer to intrepret an automobile warranty... I only hope that Ben honors his word, and overnights the refund.
Exactly. I'm waiting for just one person to come forward and say that they have had a claim paid. Anyone?
A person that is running their exotic car as a business is another can-of-worms? Renting a Ferrari out, and keeping all the profits would be a great business if you could shift the risk of break-downs to another party for $3,000 a year I see two small business men, both trying to make a buck... and both thought they had a good idea. Renting Ferraris is tricky? Insuring private owned and driven exotics is a good idea. But that's not what we have here from either party?
