U-Haul bans Ford Explorer

U-Haul Forbids Rentals to Explorer Drivers Thu Jan 8, 6:27 AM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!

DETROIT - U-Haul is forbidding its stores from renting trailers to customers driving Ford Explorers, citing product liability lawsuits involving the popular sport utility vehicle, a newspaper reported.

U-Haul International Inc., North America's largest trailer rental company with more than 17,000 outlets, implemented the policy Dec.

22, saying it can no longer afford to defend the lawsuits, The Detroit News reported in Thursday editions.

"U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations," the company told the newspaper, adding that the move is "not related to safety issues."

Joanne Fried, a U-Haul spokeswoman, declined to disclose how much the Phoenix-based company has spent defending lawsuits involving Explorers.

"The decision is not based on one accident," she said. "It's based on several different lawsuits going on for several years."

Ford Motor Co. spokesman Jon Harmon called U-Haul's decision "surprising and disappointing."

"This is all about runaway litigation and trial lawyers forcing businesses to make unfortunate decisions for fear of lawsuits," he said.

U-Haul was involved in a lawsuit that Bridgestone/Firestone settled out of court in September. It involved three college students who were injured when their Firestone-equipped Explorer overturned while pulling a U-Haul trailer.

Bridgestone/Firestone is currently trying reach an agreement on a $149 million settlement of 30 class-action lawsuits because of defective tires.

Although federal regulators have said there isn't enough evidence to show that the Explorer model contributed to the tire defects, many of the problem tires were equipped on Explorers.

A bulletin issued to U-Haul dealers last month said the company's decision was "based on the negative perceptions of Ford Explorers ... we are separating ourselves from the negative public perception and its potential consequences."

Ford has maintained the Explorer is safe. In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (news - web sites) traced Explorer tire failures and resulting rollovers to tire manufacturing flaws.

Fried said the rental ban applies to all model years, even though the Explorer was redesigned in 2002, improving its rollover rating. It was voted "tow vehicle of the year" by Trailer Boats magazine the same year.

Ford launched the Explorer 14 years ago and this month will deliver its 5 millionth unit.

Reply to
Philip®
Loading thread data ...

WOW!

that's the first we're hearing of it :rolleyes

Late to the party, dude!

Reply to
Chief_Wiggum

Philip,

This has already been endlessly debated in here (see the "U-Haul bans trailer rentals for Ford Explorers" thread). One post included a letter from U-Haul saying that the ban was related to law suits and had nothing to do with the suitability or unsuitability of Explorers to tow. Even more amazing is the fact that the ban doesn't extend to Mountaineers or Navajos. It seems to me, the ban would make more sense if they refused to rent to vehicles equipped with Firestone tires.

Ed

PS - St> U-Haul Forbids Rentals to Explorer Drivers

Reply to
C. E. White

Sounds like another bunch of crap, in a NG's, to me. Companies don't 'spend' money to 'defend' themselves in litigation. Just like you and everyone else, their insurance carrier pays the legal costs of defending the insured in any litigation, as well as paying any awards that may be granted by the courts..

mike hunt

"C. E. White" wrote:

Reply to
IleneDover

Maybe Ricky traded the Dodge in on an Explorer ?

Reply to
BillG

Who pays the insurance carrier?

Alvin in AZ

Reply to
alvinj

Ultimately, like every thing else one buys, the consumer. ;)

mike hunt

snipped-for-privacy@XX.com wrote:

Reply to
IleneDover

My guess would be that U-Haul is trying to defend itself by saying that roll overs associate with Explorers and their trailers were caused solely by the vehicle and had nothing to do with their trailer. Probably the lawyers said, "Well if your trailers are not at fault and the vehicles are dangerous, why do you rent your safe trailers to people driving dangerous vehicles?" So in order to remove themselves from the blame triangle, they are now saying, "You are right, so we are not going to rent our safe trailers to people driving those dangerous vehicles." Then to prevent Ford from suing them for liable, they put out a press release saying the ban has nothing to do with the safety of the Explorer, only that it is the safety a the Explorer as a tow vehicle.

I just checked the U-Haul on line reservation system. It now says that you can't use an Explorer (a change from last week), but you can still use a Mountaineer or a Navajo. And they did get rid of the picture showing an Explorer towing one of their trailers (another change from last week).

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Interesting reckoning CE! That might explain it.

Reply to
Anthony Giorgianni

An article in today's paper says U-haul did this becasue of the public's perception of the Explorer as an unsafe vehicle. While speculation on my part, I think the 'public' doesn't know how to drive or tow, and simply assumes that any problem with an Explorer must be the fault of someone else (*anyone* else). WHen that 'anyone' includes U-haul, and they sue U-haul (who "should have known" the Explorer was a dangerous vehicle), U-haul has to pay the bill for the legal defense. And yes, indeed, such defense does cost U-haul money, as the insurance companies will indeed raise their premiums when they need to defend the clients like that.

Reply to
Bill Funk

It seems to me, the ban would make more sense if they refused to

That's an odd thing to say.

Since the faulty tires have been recalled and replaced why would Firestone tires not be suitable in Dec 2003, several years after the original 'scare'?

I know you don't agree with me but if Firestone have (begrudgingly) recalled the faulty product and made good, then UHaul should have no problem with them. However if (and I say if so as not to offend you) the Ford Explorer was implicated and Ford never have admitted it or repaired the vehicles, then a ban makes perfect sense.

I'm not saying that is UHauls tack, they publicly state it has nothing to do with suitability. That may be their true position or they may just want to avoid a fight with Ford seeing how they turned on their co-conspirator, Firestone. We'll probably never know; but it's food for thought.

JP

Reply to
JP White

You're ignorant of what businesses do.

Reply to
Joe

Yet, U-haul is refusing to rent for use behind Explorers because of the public's perception of the Explorer. When the Explorer was not the cause of the problem, and it's several years after the scare.

You seem to be asking Ford to somehow repair Firestone's problem. Consider that Ford did step up and offer free replacement of Firestone tires long before Firestone ever did, too.

Reply to
Bill Funk

furd exploders and their owners should be banned.

Reply to
Im Right

Sure enough! :) And it's our fault! We are the jurers that hand the money over to the "little guy" because the friggin corporation has so much of it. Republicans and Libertarians take note- Lawyers using/controlling the government's power give the owners of corporations immunity.

Gov't or Inc. what's the difference? :/

Alvin in AZ

Reply to
alvinj

And they "the public" are on the jury and eager to hand over money to the little guy if they can find an excuse to do so. :(

We "the public" -are- the jury, we are also stupid as shit. :(

Yep the stupid-ass jury;) (us!) will see it as "partly fault of U-Hual" while coming up with the number of bucks they are going to "award".

"there's money in them there lawsuits" so there are prospective lawsuits (prosector-lawyers? ;).

I couldn't agree more... with your whole post. :)

Alvin in AZ (ex c-span junky ...I quit before I exploded;)

Reply to
alvinj

Actually U-Haul is probably like most other big companies, in the transportation industry. Meaning that it is most likely self-insured. No large company can afford to have full time, complete coverage, for everything. They decide what they can spend up to, then buy catastrophic coverage to meet the cost of anything over that amount. Kind of like the deductible you pay, but theirs is usually high enough so that they pay for most of the claims. The insurance company just administers the claims process, except for the 'BIG ONES'.

One trucking company I used to work for was self-insured to $5,000,000 per year for accidents, but they kept a whole bunch of lawyers driving Beemer's around the country defending against claims, so their actual cost before the insurance kicked in was close to $8,000,000.

-- Diamond Jim "The Old Devil Dog"

Reply to
J

I wasn't saying that at all. But since you bring that subject up. Please forgive my double posting of the following article I discovered today from Time Magazine.

quote One conclusion stands out amid all the examples of mutually assured destruction: while neither Ford Explorers nor Firestone tires may be unusually dangerous in their own right, the combination of the two has sometimes proved lethal. And these products share a heritage, since Firestone customized the Wilderness AT tires for the Explorer to Ford's specifications. unquote

also

quote Ford's decision to increase the stability of the Explorer by lowering the tire pressure soon had unintended consequences. The mushier tires held the road better but worsened fuel economy. When Ford asked Firestone to fix the problem, Firestone reduced the weight of the tire about 3%. unquote

Sice Firestone made the tires to For'd specifications one could actually argue that it's Ford's fault, though that wasn't my original intent. My intent was to establish joint culpability which I believe is the case.

See

formatting link
JP

Reply to
JP White

Well, I work fairly high up in a successful business, you little f*ck. Why don't you enlighten us as to why your little second rate college educated dumbass, with no graduate schooling, thinks that we are collectively ignorant as to "what business do?"

Reply to
Tony

Yes, It's very clear that you are an "educated" man. Bob

Reply to
Bob

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.