camper burns up in service lot?

[wiredgeorge]

If you use CW for service, you should probably read this article. Not sure how other RV repair places deal with fires to units in their possession.

https://camperreport.com/rv-service-...mpaign_8430375

[NH_Bulldog]

Certainly a bad situation. In this case, the Origin & Cause of the fire is undetermined, so there is no one to point the finger at. Unless CW was negligent in some way (which has not been shown to be the case) they are not accountable. This is why we have insurance. File the claim, get reimbursed for your loss and let the insurance and attorneys fight it out over the course of the next 3-4 years. On a smaller scale it is really no different than your car getting burned up in the supermarket parking lot….it isn’t the stores fault that it happened or that you made a choice not to insure your vehicle.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by NH_Bulldog

Certainly a bad situation. In this case, the Origin & Cause of the fire is undetermined, so there is no one to point the finger at. Unless CW was negligent in some way (which has not been shown to be the case) they are not accountable. This is why we have insurance. File the claim, get reimbursed for your loss and let the insurance and attorneys fight it out over the course of the next 3-4 years. On a smaller scale it is really no different than your car getting burned up in the supermarket parking lot….it isn’t the stores fault that it happened or that you made a choice not to insure your vehicle.

Yes, it's a bad situation but CW has nothing to do with it. RVs of every kind with every kind of malfunction are brought to them so there's no telling what is sitting out there on the lot with what failure waiting to explode. They have to put them pretty close to each other so the fire can/will spread. When I first started taking mine in they always told me to turn everything off, remove anything valuable/important etc. They don't insure your RV...you do. It happens with cars, boats etc. so it's not unique, just very unfortunate.

[JRTJH]

Yep.... Try suing the federal government or the state highway department to recover the cost of hitting a pothole on the interstate..... Or sue the weatherman for damages caused by the last hurricane or tornado.

Same thing here, unless the fire investigators can determine that CW is solely responsible for the fire, there's little you can do to void the statement on the bottom of every work order request that says something like, "CW is not responsible for damages or loss to your equipment"..... Once you sign the work order stating they have permission to repair your trailer, you accept ALL the terms on the document, including the "loss agreement".....

[RJS3791RD]

An this is why I maintain an umbrella policy

[JRTJH]

Originally Posted by RJS3791RD

An this is why I maintain an umbrella policy

Yep, but even they have exclusions.... Long ago I heard a phrase, "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away".... It's that hard to read stuff at the bottom that gets you if you're not careful !!!!!

[NH_Bulldog]

Originally Posted by JRTJH

Yep.... Try suing the federal government or the state highway department to recover the cost of hitting a pothole on the interstate..... Or sue the weatherman for damages caused by the last hurricane or tornado.

Same thing here, unless the fire investigators can determine that CW is solely responsible for the fire, there's little you can do to void the statement on the bottom of every work order request that says something like, "CW is not responsible for damages or loss to your equipment"..... Once you sign the work order stating they have permission to repair your trailer, you accept ALL the terms on the document, including the "loss agreement".....

This is what is referred to as a contract of adhesion; where one party forces their own terms and conditions on the other party with no opportunity for the consumer to negotiate terms. In other words; take it or leave it. However, it can be legally challenged depending on the circumstances of the loss event. For example, if CW and/or their employees or representatives were negligent in some way, it is relatively easy to challenge the “contract” and prevail in court. If CW was not negligent (not liable) then it can still be challenged, but is more of an uphill battle that usually ends with a negotiated settlement under a confidential release of a doubtful and disputed claim in lieu of prolonged litigation.

A good example of a successful challenge to a contract of adhesion was a few years ago when two techs from a local Volvo dealership were out road testing two cars individually. They were on a dead end road in an industrial park and played chicken…..neither flinched and they hit head-on, totaling the two customer’s cars. The dealership initially tried to argue the non-liability language on the service authorization, but that tactic failed quickly and after firing the two techs, the two customers got new cars.

I am not an attorney, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last week.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by NH_Bulldog

This is what is referred to as a contract of adhesion; where one party forces their own terms and conditions on the other party with no opportunity for the consumer to negotiate terms. In other words; take it or leave it. However, it can be legally challenged depending on the circumstances of the loss event. For example, if CW and/or their employees or representatives were negligent in some way, it is relatively easy to challenge the “contract” and prevail in court. If CW was not negligent (not liable) then it can still be challenged, but is more of an uphill battle that usually ends with a negotiated settlement under a confidential release of a doubtful and disputed claim in lieu of prolonged litigation.

A good example of a successful challenge to a contract of adhesion was a few years ago when two techs from a local Volvo dealership were out road testing two cars individually. They were on a dead end road in an industrial park and played chicken…..neither flinched and they hit head-on, totaling the two customer’s cars. The dealership initially tried to argue the non-liability language on the service authorization, but that tactic failed quickly and after firing the two techs, the two customers got new cars.

I am not an attorney, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last week.

LOL! I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express myself! Big difference though between those yoyos in the cars vs an individual's RV sitting out in the middle of a storage lot waiting to get a bay. I agree that proof of negligence would be grounds for a suit if they didn't willingly just offer to compensate. The problem there is "proof". Because it is at their facility in storage isn't going to give anyone a leg up on trying to sue - a propane leak could have caused it and that's not the dealership's fault.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by RJS3791RD

An this is why I maintain an umbrella policy

What kind of umbrella policy? I have one as well but it's for liability; is yours for ordinary loss that exceeds xxx?

[wiredgeorge]

One thing to remember is that with a major fire, a fire marshal will investigate and they will most likely pinpoint the cause. Where there is a great deal of dollar damage or personal injury/death the fire marshal investigating will do a very thorough job. CW's lot is an odd place for spontaneous combustion to take place. Fire take heat/spark, O2 and fuel. Propane tanks likely made the fire in the example a much larger deal.

[GlasNav]

We only had our trailer in a RV service facility, when dropping it off, even though it was a well established facility, I was uneasy signing the hold harmless clause on their contract. The service was for warranty issues, have been doing all my own repairs and upgrades since then.
The part that bothers me regarding this insurance bypass is that when I worked in the maritime industry, while in shipyard, the vessel was covered under care and custody by the shipyard insurers.

[jasin1]

I wonder how it works if they find that the fire started from someone’s trailer they dropped off that had shoddy electrical work done by the owner…like lithium battery’s and inverters improperly installed…insurance or liability nightmare i suppose

[flybouy]

I think a lot of the legalese in work authorization is to prevent people from pursuing legal recourse. You can pursue it in court but here's the thing, would it be worth it? Litigation could take several years without a guaranteed favorable outcome. Without personal injury the settlement would likely be replacement value for the trailer any maybe the contents if you have good records on those contents.

My thinking is to let my insurance company take care of it. Sometimes the insurance company will pursue reconciliation with the other parties insurance company. I'm good with letting them fight it out as I'm sure the insurance companies have plenty of lawyers on retainer looking for a fight.

[notanlines]

What Flybouy said: Let insurance companies fight it out. You don’t have a dog in that fight.

[LERD]

Who knows if Camping World is responsible or not. I have insurance for my rig for wherever it is. The dealers lot, a campground, on the highway or the storage lot. However, there is a sleazy angle to part of this story. One customer was interviewed after the fire. Apparently his RV was one of the rigs destroyed by the fire. But that's not the worst part. This guy got a call from Camping World demanding payment for the service work done on his RV. His rig is gone, and you want him to pay you for services rendered. But, was it done Correctly, to your satisfaction, was it even done at all? Camping World should be glad they didn't call me trying to pull that s$/t.

[Bill-2020]

Originally Posted by wiredgeorge

If you use CW for service, you should probably read this article. Not sure how other RV repair places deal with fires to units in their possession.

https://camperreport.com/rv-service-...mpaign_8430375

...As ours sits in a packed-like-sardines CW service lot just waiting to be finished... You sure know how to make a guy nervous.