Another post stated that this car might have a 722.4 trans. The .4 is just a downsized .3 so the hydraulic system will be the same. The portion of the manual I posted is listed for the .3 and .4.

So you would rather them blindly pay any claim that comes their way? The ins co asking for proof isn't a sign of them being "difficult".

If you got a call from someone stating that you had backed into their car in a parking lot and they were demanding money, would you just pay what they wanted or ask to see proof of damage?

Yes the trans failed after a tow, but no proof has been shown that the tow caused the failure. Even the dealer is changing their story between the rear pump failing and the rear pump working fine to the point it "over pressured the system". Neither of these diagnoses are even valid as the rear pump isn't needed to make the car go, later trans didn't have the rear pump installed.

How does the ins company know that someone making a claim didn't have a trans that failed on it's own then buddies up with a tow company to file a false claim? ( Now before others get all riled up, I am not suggesting that is what the car owner is doing in this thread. )

Do ins companies pay for crash damage and not even look at the car? ( Or at least have an ins certified body shop have a look.)

This can be true as shops don't often have excess space / time, however they can't be faulted for this. If the shop does a line pressure test right from the start / output flange check, they may find the problem.

In the end, the owner manual states that short tows are permissible, if the tow company did nothing counter to the manual, should they still be held liable for the trans not working post tow? If so, why?


If the manual stated that any flat towing was not permissible, then they would not have any wiggle room and would likely be liable for damage if it could be proven that the tow damaged an otherwise functional trans.