Community Forums

DD788Snipe · 08-20-2015, 10:09 PM

UPDATE: My friends finally got into the Monaco service center in Coburg OR. to get the new Lippert system pump installed and a few other odds and ends fixed. The service techs told James that the tire company in Medford shouldn't have used the leveling jacks for any reason to change tires. They had to live in their rig for almost a month without leveling jacks and the Salon/Galley slides in. What a pain.
I will continue to update this post as this issue grinds along to a conclusion.

DD788Snipe · 08-25-2015, 07:28 PM

UPDATE: Well James and Maryanne finally returned to Coquille from Coburg yesterday. They finally have the means to put the two front slides out and level the coach. They are happy campers. The Monaco techs said that, in a way, the tire company helped them out. He told them that the Lippert pump that was installed on their rig only had one seal between the reservoir and motor and was destined to fail at anytime and could have failed with the slides out and jacks down. So for now everything is great. They are still mulling over the prospect of going after the tire company for financial losses because. I'll update if that happens.

gemini5362 · 08-26-2015, 11:23 AM

exactly what are there financial losses. Possibly the money to pay lippert. They are not out any monetary damage for the slides not going out because they lived in their coach. If they had moved out of the coach because the slides would not go out then they would have monetary damages. They might sue for inconvenience trying to live in a coach with the slides not moving out. it is very inconevient but trying to prove how much that is worth will be hard. Depending on how much they are out. Find out the limit on small claims court. File in small claims court for the cost of lippert. Get a statement from Lippert that says the jacks should not have been used to replace the tires and if possible something from lippert showing how the jacks were damaged by doing that. Pick a magic number for inconvenience. I.E look at how much it would have cost to rent a hotel room for that period and then take 3/4 of that cost or 1/2 of that cost or something they can explain to a judge where they came up with the number. I think it would be acceptable to take pictures of the camper with the slides in. Show the judge how they cannot get to their drawers in the dressers with the slides in. How they cannot walk to their closet with the slides in. If they cannot get to the refrigerator with the slides in then figure in cost of going out for meals. Whatever they put in the lawsuit be able to give a reasonable explanation for where they came up with that number. I imagine they are going to be above the amount that they can sue in small claims court for. Sue for the maximum number they can get in small claims court if that is the case. Taking this to a lawyer will result in them losing half of what they might get and it is going to be such a small amount anyway.

DD788Snipe · 08-27-2015, 09:46 PM

Great advice Gemini5362. It really turned into a nightmare for them. Really messed up a month of their vacation. Had to do a lot more traveling than they planned on to get things fixed.

gemini5362 · 08-28-2015, 01:20 PM

I have been representing a union in arbitrations for the last 15 years. It is a part time hobby job for me. In 15 years I have learned a lot. Because something is crystal clear to me does not mean that the other side does not have a view that is crystal clear to them and that the arbitrator may not see either side that clearly. There are certain issues that are very hard to prove. How much damages they have can be one of them. It will be hard to prove that the damage was caused by using the jacks incorrectly. I think the fact that everything worked before they used them to replace the tires is a fact you can point to. Can you prove that it was not a coincidence and the failure just happened to happen at that time and was not related to improperly jacking the coach up with the jacks. Remember they are the plaintiffs and they have the burden of proving their case. If they overcome the burden of proving it was the tire companies fault then they have to prove their damages. Damages that they paid to have fixed are easy they have a receipt for that. Trying to prove the burden not being able to use the slides and coming up with a dollar amount is a lot more difficult. If at all possible stay out of formal court go to small claims court. The rules of evidence are a lot more relaxed. The judge will allow both parties to discuss their case back and forth. In most states if not all Attorneys are not allowed in small claims court unless they are the defendant ( I.E. if the tire shop was owned by an attorney he could represent himself) When you go into small claims court you are going to be opposite someone like yourself not someone with several years experience and access to various law libraries. I do recommend going to small claims court though. It is a small amount of money compared to what you can recover. You have 50/50 odds of winning which is better than any casino game. I wish your friend luck and hope you will continue to post what happens.

Redapple · 08-28-2015, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemini5362

I have been representing a union in arbitrations for the last 15 years. It is a part time hobby job for me. In 15 years I have learned a lot. Because something is crystal clear to me does not mean that the other side does not have a view that is crystal clear to them and that the arbitrator may not see either side that clearly. There are certain issues that are very hard to prove. How much damages they have can be one of them. It will be hard to prove that the damage was caused by using the jacks incorrectly. I think the fact that everything worked before they used them to replace the tires is a fact you can point to. Can you prove that it was not a coincidence and the failure just happened to happen at that time and was not related to improperly jacking the coach up with the jacks. Remember they are the plaintiffs and they have the burden of proving their case. If they overcome the burden of proving it was the tire companies fault then they have to prove their damages. Damages that they paid to have fixed are easy they have a receipt for that. Trying to prove the burden not being able to use the slides and coming up with a dollar amount is a lot more difficult. If at all possible stay out of formal court go to small claims court. The rules of evidence are a lot more relaxed. The judge will allow both parties to discuss their case back and forth. In most states if not all Attorneys are not allowed in small claims court unless they are the defendant ( I.E. if the tire shop was owned by an attorney he could represent himself) When you go into small claims court you are going to be opposite someone like yourself not someone with several years experience and access to various law libraries. I do recommend going to small claims court though. It is a small amount of money compared to what you can recover. You have 50/50 odds of winning which is better than any casino game. I wish your friend luck and hope you will continue to post what happens.

Do not agree...in this case the tire company was specifically to NOT to use the leveling system...period. The tire company chose to ignore the directions and are therefore at fault...period. It does not matter whether or not the Jacks would or would not have failed. They failed when they were told not to use them. The tire company is lisble, and they did the right thing. This is not, or should I say should not be debateable. Just my humble opinion...

Thanks for listening

gemini5362 · 08-29-2015, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redapple

Do not agree...in this case the tire company was specifically to NOT to use the leveling system...period. The tire company chose to ignore the directions and are therefore at fault...period. It does not matter whether or not the Jacks would or would not have failed. They failed when they were told not to use them. The tire company is lisble, and they did the right thing. This is not, or should I say should not be debateable. Just my humble opinion...

Thanks for listening

I am not saying I am right I am just pointing out some of the things they need to know. Your opinion might be correct. I did not see anything saying the owner told them not to use the jacks just that they did not give them permission. Lets say just for funs and giggles that I was the tire shop making the argument defending myself. First thing I would do is get information about the jack system. Does it have an over pressure relief valve. If so that valve had to malfunction for the motor to have been in an overpressure situation. How old was the motor was it getting ready to fail because of end of service life. How much are the actual jacks rated for. If they are rated for the weight of the coach I would argue that I did not misuse the system. Now if the tire dealer is unscrupulous they could say ( I would not do this but you would be suprised at how many would) I asked the owner if it was ok to use the jacks and he said sure. Then you would be into who is telling the truth the MH owner or the tire shop. Small claims court is going to take place in the town the tire shop is in. The tire shop would literally have the home court advantage. It makes a difference a lot of times when it is one party saying something opposite of another party especially if the judge is an elected official. Once again even if the MH owner convinces the judge it was the tire shops fault they are going to have to prove damages. I am not saying I am correct. I do contract arbitrations about every other month maybe every month. This is the things I would expect both sides to argue.

TQ60 · 08-29-2015, 09:44 PM

None of that matters at all in any way period.

What I mean is in simple terms is that a tire shop is expected to have and use their tools to do the work they are charging for.

In Court the judge should understand that.

One would not go into a diner to order breakfast and the cook expect the customer to provide the spatula cook the eggs with.

Cannot change tire without a jack and hard to cook without tools.

If owner tries to claim that he even asked you state that tire shop is expected to use their jacks and they were told not only heck no but #/#!\no!

Heber Eason · 08-30-2015, 07:59 AM

It is best to remove all doubt and tell the shop owner not to use the coach jacks. Many of the MH owners are sometimes challenged in the proper procedures to follow in raising and lowering their jacks. Do not assume anything in having a MH worked on in any shop.

nothermark · 08-30-2015, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TQ60

None of that matters at all in any way period.

What I mean is in simple terms is that a tire shop is expected to have and use their tools to do the work they are charging for.

In Court the judge should understand that.

One would not go into a diner to order breakfast and the cook expect the customer to provide the spatula cook the eggs with.

Cannot change tire without a jack and hard to cook without tools.

If owner tries to claim that he even asked you state that tire shop is expected to use their jacks and they were told not only heck no but #/#!\no!

It does to the extent that they have to have a way to know where they can jack up the MH. One of the problems with these beasts is where one can safely put a jack. At least the leveling system is designed to support the coach weight. Granted, the wheels should not be in the air, but if the system was not capable of putting them there then it would not be able to really handle bad sites. That would backlash more than changing tires.

TQ60 · 08-30-2015, 08:30 AM

If they stated in court that they did not know where to place a jack to lift a tire for service the judge would throw his gavel at them.

One usually places the jack under the axle...

If tire shop does not have equipment or skills to properly perform the task they stop at once.

nothermark · 08-31-2015, 05:21 AM

Actually one has to be very careful with jack placement or things get bent. If you read the literature from the axle manufacturers they will tell you not to use the axle tubes. Similar problem with the frames. The bigger the vehicle the more critical it gets. That said I hope the tire shop has a database available with jacking points. Then there is the problem that it might tell them to use the on board hydraulics. ;-)

My real point is that one cannot assume that jacking up heavy truck chassis is as simple as what we got away with in the old body on frame car days. Just like one has to be careful with unibody cars. The push to reduce weight combined with better engineered materials just makes it worse. Manufacturers put in hard points where jacks can be used but one has to use them and only them or damage is likely to result.

Retiredblade · 08-31-2015, 05:38 AM

My manual says not to do it. Four years ago, I went to my local tire dealer to get two front tires. It is a big shop, they do a lot of big rigs. They must have hired a rookie, and as I was standing there watching, he got a big floor jack and started to push it under the center of the motor home. I yelled, "no, no, not there, you will crush the generator", a guy who knew what he was doing heard me came out, grabbed it and placed it where it should be. If I had not been watching, who knows, I might have driven away with the generator shot.

vfauto · 08-31-2015, 05:57 AM

After reading all this I've come to the conclusion that these are all opinions and everyone thinks their opinion is correct. Unfortunately when it comes to a court case only one opinion counts. But for the heck of it I will throw my opinion out there . The leveling jacks are factory equipment so with that being said if the tire shop got in the coach to move it and the brakes failed whose fault would it be? How would the technician know that the brakes or for that matter the leveling jacks are about to fail.