THE LEGAL CASE AGAINST FORD'S EXTENDED SERVICE PLANS In Small Claims Court in Alhambra, California, June 24, 2016, in my lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for fraudulent misrepresentation, Ford made the tacit admission that the Ford Extended Service Plan brochure contains three or more false claims. Ford's argument in its defense, and affirmed by Judge Michael Small in his unequivocal opinion, was that my failed shock absorber wasn't a covered part, BECAUSE SHOCK ABSORBERS ARE NOT LISTED AS COVERED, THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE.
Therein lies the problem. The court accepted Ford's argument against the plain language in its own ESP brochure. And it is that argument that forms the basis for my complaint against Ford's Extended Service Plans. According to Ford's own Website, Ford has sold 35 million of these fraudulent plans.
1. The court's decision is final, not subject to reversal or appeal, that only listed parts are covered, so that the shock absorber, not a listed part, wasn't covered by my plan. Here is issue number one: There are fewer than 300 covered parts listed in the brochure. But the brochure claims that 500 plus parts are covered.
Since a part must be listed to be covered and there are fewer than 300 parts listed, the claim of 500 plus parts covered is a false claim. False Claim number 1. 2. The brochure claims that the list of covered parts is a partial list.
It has been established that since a part must be listed to be covered, the listed parts covered must be a complete list. The claim that the list of covered parts is a partial list is a false claim. False Claim number 2. 3.
The brochure lists the only components not covered. Since all parts not listed are also not covered, the list of components not covered should include hundreds of components. It doesn't. The claim that only the components listed as not covered are non-covered parts is a false claim.
False Claim number 3. 4. Finally, many of the parts listed as covered are, in fact, not covered. They are not covered because in those instances not even a single component part is listed as covered.
If any of those component parts, none of which are covered, were to fail, then Ford could deny coverage based on the now established, must-be- listed rule.
Much the same as with the not listed therefore EXCLUDED shock absorber, a component part of covered front suspension, which was, in fact, only covered until a non-covered component, the shock absorber in this instance, failed. This court ruling has legitimized Ford's potential rejection of coverage for dozens of listed covered parts, in absolute contradiction of the plain meanings of the unambiguous text drafted by Ford in its own brochure.
Reason of review: Extended Service Plan.
Monetary Loss: $3729.
Preferred solution: Notify the public of the fraud..