-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Schmiechen <aschmiechen@discovercolor.com>
To: Rocky Entriken <rocky@tri.net>; team.net <autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Big Brother is watching
>I'm not a lawyer, but a warranty is a contractual agreement between a buyer
>and a manufacturer. If your warranty doesn't say anything about it being
>void if the car is raced, then it would be illegal for GM to cancel one's
>warranty.
Apparently, according to the fellow involved, there is a line in the
warranty about it being void if the car us used for racing purposes. The
real question here is the one you raise below: Is Solo II "racing"?
We in the sport say it is not. But we also tend to refer, conversationally,
to "going racing" (I always try to avoid such usage).
I once tried to buy life insurance policies on two teen-agers from State
Farm, and was informed the premiums would be doubled for their "racing
activities." At the time they had not yet turned a wheel in competition, but
the intended activities were only Solo II. State Farm would not be swayed
and a 20-year relationship (3-4 cars and homeowners) was abruptly ended as I
pulled all my business from them and went elsewhere. My (former) agent was
fully aware of what Solo II was and had been for years; he had no problem,
it was a corporate decision/ruling from higher up. I told my agent his
company cost him my business.
>GM would also have a hard time proving in court that the car used
>in the competition was the car that they were voiding the warranty on since
>the car's VIN is not included in any results that I've ever seen.
Very true, but begs the issue. First they yank the warranty. THEN you have
to buy the lawyers etc. to argue the point. And they have more lawyers than
you do.
>Also note, that no where in the Solo description or rules is autocrossing
>referred to as racing. Again, even if your warranty stated that racing
>wasn't allowed, Solo II is not racing. It's a driver skill competition.
True again, but again begs the issue. Ultimately Big Brother commits the
offense against you, then you have to defend yourself against it. You're
guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and you must be innocent by
standards THEY set, not you.
>Third, I'd also like to ask, what the hell would GM be producing Z06
>Corvettes for if it wasn't for extreme acceleration and deceleration.
That occurred to me also. But the designers and the warranty lawyers work in
different offices and probably don't talk to each other much. Basically we
are dealing with ingrained and arrogant corporate ingnorance.
--Rocky
>-A.
>
>
>> From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
>> Reply-To: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
>> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:36:17 -0500
>> To: ".Team.Net" <autox@autox.team.net>
>> Subject: Big Brother is watching
>>
>> Here's a new one to me -- is this just urban legend or is it really
>> happening?
>>
>> A driver in a Corvette Z06 came and ran his first event with us recently.
>> Today he called me to ask that if our results would be posted on our
Region
>> website, to please leave him out.
>>
>> The reason, he said, is that General Motors is reportedly surfing SCCA
>> websites to see who is using their products in "racing" activities and
>> voiding the warranties of those who do.
>>
>> I'd never heard of such a thing. My wife said she recalled a similar item
on
>> some TV news show, that car and insurance companies were using the new
>> tracking capabilities now available in some cars (Onstar?) to determine
if
>> drivers were exceeding speed limits or creating data showing hard
>> acceleration/deceleration habits, and voiding warranties and insurance
>> coverage.
>>
>> Is this real? Does anyone else know of this happening? If true, it is a
>> disturbing thing that could impact our sport. I'd love to learn it is
just
>> Chicken Little running around again, but if the sky really is falling....
>>
>> --Rocky Entriken
|