Transmission Help Needed - Won't Shift out of 1st after Tow - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

david s poole · #16 11-16-2006, 09:47 AM

why dont you claim with your insurance and have them do the hard work?

networkboy · #17 11-16-2006, 10:15 AM

Often AAA wil absorb the deductible (as they will get it too from the tow shop). If things go well today with the tow shop, then great. Else at least ask your claims adjuster it can't hurt. This is why people carry insurance Schnizzit happens.
-nB

ThosDoran · #18 11-17-2006, 01:48 PM

I was doubtful. Comprehensive wouldn't cover my glass in Rhode Island (cracked during gasket replacement) but they will cover my tranny - no questions asked!

AAA has been disappointing. The woman handling my complaint told me that her estimate of my car's value was $150.00. BS.

Now I'm into the big question. Will they total it? I have Geico insurance and while they are extremely professional and very service oriented, my understanding is that they're not too generous when it comes to determining market value.

I'd like to get prepared for next week's inspection by having documentation of recent sales of a similar model. Also, will it help that I have new paint, windshield, GP's, starter, battery, tires, rims, fuel lines, brake lines, seals all around, turn signals, headlight doors, stereo?

Motorhead · #19 11-17-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThosDoran

Procedures have begun. AAA is making contact with the company on my behalf. Then the tow company is in contact with me and I guess I'm on my own, unless I get a lawyer.

Every other insurance situation I've had was Insurance vs. Insurance. This time is Me vs. Insurance. Not something that I'm looking forward to.

Should I have a good lawyer?

yikes.

Tripple A should help you out on this.... They are supposed to contract REPUTABLE towing companies.
Don't let ANYONE BS you saying "Well it is an old car and we can't be responsable"

A friend of mine had his '90 Dodge Cummins powered with a Getrag five speed towed without dropping the driveline.... The trans WELDED itself.
The TOW company had to pay for a complete rebuild.

Don't let them try to just "PATCH" it.

pwogaman · #20 11-17-2006, 08:18 PM

Looking into the professional licensing requirements for tow truck operators. If there are licensing requirements then there are probably professional standards that go along with it. If those standards require some knowledge of what you're doing then that should entail knowing that you don't tow a rear wheel drive with the rear wheels down. Find that standard of professionalism, established that the operator breached it, then make a claim of professional negligence. In any event, report the incident to the licensing authority, or tell the tow truck operator that you feel you will have to call that authority if you are not able to work this out.

The State has an interest in protecting it citizens from professionals who don't have a clue what they're doing.

Be prepared to compromise.

Here are some examples:

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/vehicletransport/vttowtruckop.html

https://revenue.stlouisco.com/Licensing/TowTruckOrd.aspx

http://www.senate.mo.gov/05info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=r&BillID=21084

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/html/licenses/125.shtml

http://www.puco.ohio.gov/Puco/IndustryTopics/Topic.cfm?doc_id=418

pwogaman · #21 11-17-2006, 08:39 PM

Take a look through the links on this page for professional standards:

http://www.towpartners.com/associationpartner.php

Look at this page discussing certification program. Note that vehicle placement is an element of training:

http://www.towserver.net/certification.htm#l1

pwogaman · #22 11-17-2006, 09:33 PM

Here is an opinion from a court case that is related to your interests:

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Wood County.
MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee,
v.
V.J.'s TOWING, INC., Appellant.

No. WD-90-41.

March 29, 1991.

Warren S. George, for appellee.
William R. Lindsley, for appellant.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

This is an appeal from the decision of the Perrysburg Municipal Court following a trial to the court. Appellant asserts that the court's finding that appellant was negligent in towing appellee's insured's car is against the manifest weight of the evidence. We find that there was sufficient competent and credible evidence before the court from which it could make its determination. We affirm its decision.

Appellee, Motorists Mutual Insurance, is issuer of an auto insurance policy to Theresa Kahler. It acquired its interest in this suit by subrogation. Appellant is a company that operates tow trucks. In April 1988 Theresa Kahler was involved in a collision accident near Perrysburg. One of appellant's trucks was called to tow Kahler's 1987 four wheel drive Subaru. The car was towed approximately two tenths of a mile to appellant's business property. A damage appraiser viewed the car at appellant's location and noted its mileage as 8,707. Later appellant towed the car to a Subaru dealer in West Toledo for repair, a distance of approximately sixteen miles. At the Subaru complex, mechanics discovered that the car's transmission was without fluid and that its working parts had been fused together. When the appellee's damage appraiser once again viewed the car he observed that the mileage on the car was sixteen miles less than he had noted when he first viewed the car at the appellant's business location.

Appellee sued appellant alleging that appellant had negligently towed Kahler's car to the Subaru dealer by allowing the front wheels of the car to be on the pavement during the tow. Appellant denied this, asserting that a dolly had been placed under the front wheels of the car when towing the vehicle.

At trial appellee called the transmission specialist from the Subaru dealership. He testified that Kahler's car had a constant four wheel drive. He further testified that damage of the type observed in Kahler's transmission can occur if the car is towed with the front wheels on the ground at speeds above twenty miles per hour. The Subaru transmission specialist also testified that the effect of towing this type of car with its rear wheels elevated and its front wheels on the pavement is a regression of the mileage indicated on the odometer.

Appellant's presentation consisted of testimony by appellant's employee who indicated that when he towed Kahler's car to the Subaru dealership he elevated the front wheels of the car and put dollies under the rear wheels. An employee of the Subaru dealership who was an acquaintance of the tow truck driver testified that he saw the car being towed on dollies. The owner of the appellant towing business testified he saw the car leave his place of business on dollies. The owner also testified that the appellee's damage appraiser had called after his initial viewing of the car at the appellant's business and requested someone to check the mileage because the appraiser had failed to do so.

On this evidence the trial judge issued a decision and judgment in favor of appellee from which appellant appeals. Appellant puts forth a single assignment of error:

“THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION AND JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.”

“Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.” C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, syllabus.

The trial court had the following uncontroverted testimonial evidence before it: (1) Kahler's car was capable of movement immediately prior to the accident that required it to be towed; (2) the car was given to the care and control of appellant who towed the car first to its place of business, then approximately sixteen miles to a Subaru dealer; (3) at the Subaru dealer it was discovered that the operating parts of the transmission of Kahler's car had fused together; (4) a car in which the parts of the transmission are fused together will not move; (5) transmission parts may fuse together if a four wheel drive car is towed with its front wheels on the pavement; (6) if a four wheel drive car is towed with its front wheels on the pavement the reading on the car's odometer will reverse; and (7) the odometer on Kahler's car read sixteen miles fewer after having been towed to the Subaru dealer than the mileage noted at the appellant's place of business. Arrayed in opposition to this evidence is the testimony of the owner of the appellant towing company, its employee and an acquaintance of the employee that the car was properly towed with its wheels supported by a dolly.

“On the trial of a case, either civil or criminal, the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of facts.” State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, paragraph one of the syllabus. Deference should be given to the trial judge who is also a trier of fact because, “the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St 3d 77, 80. This deference is such that it has been said to rise to the level of a presumption. Id.

It is clear that the uncontroverted evidence, much of which is physical evidence, is in conflict with the testimony of appellant's witnesses. Notwithstanding any presumption or deference, from this evidence the trial court could have reasonably found that the damage to Kahler's transmission occurred while her car was in the care and control of appellant and inferred that this damage resulted from the appellant's negligently towing her vehicle.

For this reason we cannot say that the trial court's decision is without competent, credible evidence in its support. Therefore, appellant's assignment of error is not well-taken.

On consideration whereof, the court finds that substantial justice has been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Perrysburg Municipal Court is affirmed. It is ordered that appellant pay court costs of this appeal.

jshadows · #23 11-17-2006, 09:42 PM

Well, appelate decision looks good, but better hope you don't have to go that route. As for paralegal handling the case, this is also not a good idea as it is generally against the law (and an ethics violation on the part of the attorney who farmed the paralegal out).

Keep AAA on it, get insurance co. on it and exhaust all personal avenues before taking the litigation route.

ThosDoran · #24 11-29-2006, 01:16 PM

First value they came up with was $1500.00. ""they're gonna total it!" I couldn't believe that the adjusters would only use two sales to come up with that figure. I was looking at a total and a salvage title and $500.00 bucks all said and done to do my tranny work.
That was unacceptable, so I did a quick search of cars.com and autotrader.com. The prices that dealers were asking on those two sites (about five 240D's) averaged to $3500.00. I emailed my adjuster and the next day they came back with a revised value of exactly that: $3500.00. Now we're talking.

Got a check today for the full estimated repair cost of an installed/ rebuilt tranny: $2400.00.

Geico is going after the Tow company for the recovery of their output.

Good News and three cheers for the Gecko.

Motorhead · #25 11-29-2006, 04:35 PM

Right on!!! Your perseverance paid off. Insurance companies are a "For Profit" business. If they can bam-bousal people to take less then THEIR bottom line looks better.
30 years ago I had an old OVAL window VW. Some jacka$$ cut me off on the freeway and buggered up my car. At the time the damage was worth $750. They said the car wasn't worth that according to blue book value.
I held out and told them to "Just replace the car ". They said they could not. I told them then just give me the money to fix it.
It took a few months but it happened.

You guys that have nice cars can get them appraised, get a statement from the appraiser and insure your car for that value.