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

Not true, Many large companies of which U-Haul is one, self-insure in these cases with an excess coverage carrier. This is where an insurance carrier handles the claims on a cost plus basis up to a cap which is usually quite high. This is like a deductible to a private party. In the case of a large business like U-Haul, you are looking at a self-insured amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars per loss before the excess coverage kicks in. Likewise, there is no coverage for legal expenses or attorney fees that are paid by the "insured". Up to the excess level, it all comes out of their pocket and right off the bottom line. Above the cap, the pay dearly for insurance coverage. These losses can easily place many companies into receivership. Remember that a company is nothing but a financial tool owned by investers. Those investers may include some of the folks in this NG if they are planning for retirement.

Reply to
lugnut

True, many companies do 'self insure' for certain employee coverage's and some losses, but product liability is not one of them.

Just where in "Detroit" was this article published? There is nothing current or in the archives of the 'Detroit Free Press,' 'Tribune Newspapers,' 'Automotive News,' or the 'Wall Street Journal.' Fords HR site dose not list anybody in their publicity or legal departments by the name of Jon Harman or John Harman or other variations of the name.

mike hunt

lugnut wrote:

Reply to
IleneDover

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

mike hunt

snipped-for-privacy@XX.com wrote:

Reply to
IleneDover

Reply to
Thomas Moats

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

I found this article in the Detroit News, here it is unabridged.

mike hunt

By Eric Mayne, The Detroit News U-Haul International is forbidding its stores to rent trailers to customers who plan to tow with the Ford Explorer, saying it no longer can afford to defend product liability lawsuits linked to the best-selling SUV.

U-Haul says the decision was not related to safety.

By Tim Boyle, Getty Images

The reasons for the unusual move by U-Haul aren't entirely clear but it comes after the Explorer appeared to have overcome lingering image problems associated with the Firestone tire debacle.

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

22, saying the ban was not related to safety.

"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 Detroit News.

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 (F) 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," Harmon said.

U-Haul was embroiled in a lawsuit that Bridgestone/Firestone settled out of court in September. It involved three college students who were injured in 1999 when their Firestone-equipped Explorer overturned while pulling a U-Haul trailer.

U-Haul would not release details about the accidents cited in its lawsuits.

A bulletin issued to U-Haul dealers last month, which was obtained by The News, says the company's move was "based on the negative perceptions of Ford Explorers ... we are separating ourselves from the negative public perception and its potential consequences."

U-Haul has no ban on rentals to Mercury Mountaineer owners, although the vehicle is mechanically a carbon copy of the Explorer.

"We've had no issues with the Mercury Mountaineer," Fried said.

The slight is the latest in a series of setbacks that have dogged the Explorer, America's top-selling SUV and the sixth-best selling vehicle in 2003.

In August 2001, Firestone was forced to recall 14.4 million defective tires ? equipped mostly on Explorers. The treads on the tires often separated, causing drivers to lose control of their Explorers and often roll over.

Federal regulators linked 271 deaths and more than

800 injuries to the defective tires.

Ford recalled an additional 13 million Firestone tires in May 2001.

Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone have spent millions of dollars to settle product liability cases over the tires and SUV.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in February 2002 that there was not enough evidence to open a formal defect investigation of the Explorer.

In the wake of the widely publicized Firestone tire recall, the Explorer has become a favorite target among product liability lawyers, said Sid Gilreath, a Knoxville, Tenn., lawyer involved in product liability litigation for more than three decades.

The number of lawsuits involving Explorers isn't necessarily a reflection of its performance characteristics, Gilreath said.

"The lawyers who do those (cases) know that we have more documentation on the Explorer," Gilreath said.

Ford maintains the Explorer is safe. In 2002, NHTSA traced Explorer tire failures and resulting rollovers to tire manufacturing flaws.

Still, the controversy prompted federal regulators to adopt ratings that rank SUVs based on their propensity to roll over.

The test used to set ratings recently was revised to better reflect real-world driving conditions.

The 2003 Ford Explorer was among the first vehicles subjected to the new test. The results are pending.

Acknowledging the same legal cost pressures U-Haul cited in its rental ban, Harmon said Ford has settled Explorer lawsuits out of court, adding the company is 8-0 in cases that have gone to juries.

Fried said the rental ban applies to all model years, even though Explorer was redesigned in 2002 ? the same year the SUV improved its NHTSA rollover rating from two stars to three, and was voted "tow vehicle of the year" by Trailer Boats magazine.

"It's a perfectly capable tow vehicle," said Stuart Bourdon, automotive editor of the California-based publication.

"The bottom line is, if you don't overload the vehicle and you've got the proper tires with the appropriate ratings and they are properly inflated and you drive with common sense, you really shouldn't have any problems."

Motorists often exceed the towing limits of their vehicles, said John Oraha, sales manager at Avis Ford in Southfield. Engines and suspensions must be a match for the job, he said, so motorists should ask themselves questions such as: "Do you have a V-8? Do you have a tow package?"

Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, which oversees NHTSA, said the large number of Explorer models on the road must be factored into accident frequency.

And in U-Haul's case, trailers can be "quite difficult to handle," said Hall, who now runs Hall and Associates, a safety and security consulting agency in Washington.

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

Reply to
IleneDover

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

Your company apparently is not a manufacture subject to product liability litigation. ;)

mike hunt

Thomas Moats wrote:

Reply to
MikrHunt

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

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.