Geo, our canteen truck dude, has a 2002 supercharged Escalade. We put Z-Rated tires on because he said does do 150 mph on his way to buy the beef & broccoli at BJ’s. So when he had a nail in a tire, we fixed it properly. Last month the same tire we fixed blew out “suddenly” on the highway, with wife and child in the car. His ego damaged because he had to call AAA to change his spare, Geo claimed defective tire and Yokohama promptly sent a plastic bag and took the tire back for inspection; he got letters from lawyers in California and estimates for damage to his truck.
Now I know Geo. I eat his beef and broccoli and this was clearly a case of something for nothing. And it was no surprise to me that the claim was denied because he hit something. And I was more than pleased to see that the repair we made was deemed not to be a contributing factor to the tire’s demise. (Although Yokohama did not blame the repair, they did point out that the speed rating of the tire is void once it has been repaired, but is ok for normal highway speeds and since Geo wouldn’t admit to going any faster than 65mph in his 700 horsepower SUV, we were off the hook).
If you are doing sub-standard tire repairs, do you think a tire company would hesitate to throw you under the bus because you made an improper repair on one of their products that a customer thinks is defective? I think not. So given the choice of losing money on doing a proper repair, or making money on an improper repair, which do you choose?
No comments:
Post a Comment