Tiffin owner got really, really mad (and drunk of course)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

UTTransplant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Posts
3,203
Location
Cedar Falls, IA
http://trbnews.net/main/2019/07/10/intoxicated-driver-facing-charges-after-ramming-rv-into-motorhome-repair-facility-causing-major-damage/

According to FB posts from people who were in the campground, a Tiffin RED owner was unhappy about how long it was taking to do warranty work on their rig. Just before 9:00 at night the wife decided to pull her rig out of the campground with awning and slides out, fully connected to power and water, drive around the campground a bit to get up speed, then rammed full speed into a repair bay at the Tiffin service center. Her husband was in the Jeep following her, and ran into the back of the RED when it stopped inside the service bay. Sadly there was a new Tiffin Phaeton just getting finished up - almost surely totally destroyed. The woman had to be extricated by the fire department, and is reportedly in the hospital with broken bones. The husband was just taken directly to jail. The wife is certainly on her way to the same place when the hospital releases her. Alcohol is believed to have contributed to the incident (shocking, I know).
 

Becks

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Posts
1,027
And I would sure hope the punishment will be severe. Hopefully Tiffin will be able to step up and help the Phaeton owner who's coach was totaled.
 

Gary RV_Wizard

Site Team
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
76,141
Location
West Palm Beach, FL
I've heard of a lot of frustration over the crowding and delays at Tiffin's factory service center, but that one takes the cake. 


My sympathies go out to the owners of the new Phaeton that was innocently sitting in that bay. :'(
 

irishtom29

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Posts
170
BinaryBob said:
Along with the legal and medical problems, these goofballs will have to personally fork out the cost of the destroyed Phaeton.

Why? Isn't their insurance company obligated to pay?
 

Roy M

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2017
Posts
1,400
Location
southern British Columbia
Probably not as they were impaired and it was a deliberate act. The shop's insurer might pay out then go after them but they likely have few assets.
 

Gary RV_Wizard

Site Team
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
76,141
Location
West Palm Beach, FL
The amount and type of impairment is irrelevant in any US vehicle liability policy. So is intention except in a few instances of felony crime.  However, chances are high that the amount of property damage (shop and the Phaeton) exceeds the property damage limits of their insurance policy and they would be personally liable for any additional amount awarded in a lawsuit.  The owner of the Phaeton is safe because Tiffin no doubt has insurance to cover anything in their care and that would kick-in as well.

Typically in a case like this the three insurance companies will sort it out. The Phaeton owner's insurance will subrogate the claim to Tiffin's insurer, who will likely pay to repair or replace the Phaeton and then subrogate the claim for that & the shop damage to the driver of the other coach and their insurer.

Where intent may become a factor is in their collision insurance.  Intentionally damaging your own vehicle is usually not covered.  They and their lender are probably going to take that loss. Again, they are personally liable to the lender for the loan balance if their insurance doesn't pay off.
 

garyb1st

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Posts
4,121
Location
Southern California
irishtom29 said:
Why? Isn't their insurance company obligated to pay?

Intention is the issue.  Hard to say it was an accident when the driver did it intentionally.  Depending on the wording of the insurance policy (generally written to cover accidental damage) it's hard to imagine this could be construed as an accident.  Don't know if temporary insanity will come into play, but think these folks will need to find a good attorney.  Fortunately they didn't kill anyone in the frenzy. 
 

Gary RV_Wizard

Site Team
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
76,141
Location
West Palm Beach, FL
Intention is NOT an issue for liability insurance.  The reason states require liability insurance on vehicles is to protect the innocent victim, not the driver who is at fault. That's also why the vehicle is insured rather than the driver.  Vehicles don't have intent - only drivers do. 
 

SargeW

Site Team
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Posts
8,266
Location
Where ever we park it!
Actually the Phaeton owner is off the hook as the rig was to be delivered to the new owner the next day. Since Tiffin does no deliveries from the factory, it would have been sent to the selling dealer for delivery. So more than likely no papers have been signed taking delivery. 

The biggest problem the Phaeton buyer will have is waiting another several weeks for a new unit to be built. Now the drunk couple, they have lots of problems.
 

UTTransplant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Posts
3,203
Location
Cedar Falls, IA
SargeW said:
Actually the Phaeton owner is off the hook as the rig was to be delivered to the new owner the next day. Since Tiffin does no deliveries from the factory, it would have been sent to the selling dealer for delivery. So more than likely no papers have been signed taking delivery. 

The biggest problem the Phaeton buyer will have is waiting another several weeks for a new unit to be built. Now the drunk couple, they have lots of problems.
I know the article says it was new, but there is a license plate on that Phaeton. I believe it was in for some warranty repairs instead of a new delivery. Someone on FB knew the owners.
 

John From Detroit

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Posts
26,278
Location
Davison Michigan
IF it had happened by accident on a highway even if the driver of the at-fault was under the influence then automotive insurance laws prevail and odds are the victim's insurance would have to pay the majority and the perp's the deductable

But since it was on private property. and intentional..  It is what the lawyers call "My new Class A Motor home"
 

Utclmjmpr

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Posts
5,619
Location
Cedar City, UT
Another area where the Phaeton owner needs to be made whole is the vehicle now has a damage history it didn't have when it was dropped off.>>>Dan
 

UTTransplant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Posts
3,203
Location
Cedar Falls, IA
Utclmjmpr said:
Another area where the Phaeton owner needs to be made whole is the vehicle now has a damage history it didn't have when it was dropped off.>>>Dan
I think the Phaeton was totaled. The folks who were discussing it in Red Bay said the transmission dropped out due to the impact. I guess the air brakes did their job pretty well! In addition, the slides were out, and I am sure they were seriously damaged. Add to that the damage to that very expensive engine in the rear, and I doubt this particular VIN will ever be on the road. There are a lot more pictures on a local FB page that are pretty astonishing.
 

SargeW

Site Team
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Posts
8,266
Location
Where ever we park it!
UTTransplant said:
I know the article says it was new, but there is a license plate on that Phaeton. I believe it was in for some warranty repairs instead of a new delivery. Someone on FB knew the owners.

Yeah, that would suck if the owner had already taken delivery. Nothing like a brand new 1/4 million dollar pile of scrap metal.
 

BinaryBob

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Posts
1,921
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Perhaps states differ, but I'd doubt it.
This is standard language in vehicle insurance policies regardless of private passenger auto, RV, trucks, commercial or personal:

"We" do not provide Liability Coverage for any "covered person":
"Who expected or intended to cause "bodily injury" or "property damage" or whose intentional or
criminal acts may have reasonably been expected to result in "bodily injury" or "property damage".
 

BinaryBob

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Posts
1,921
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota
I think you're misinterpreting this one Gary.
Liability extends only to third parties, not the policy holder. So the legal jargon, "We do not provide Liability Coverage for any "covered person", in this scenario means they will not provide liability coverage (damages to third parties) to the policy holder and their additional family members for their intentional acts. If this exclusion were not in the policy, there would be a free-for-all for all the hot heads who intentionally damage property and get into fights with others. (Oh well... my insurance will pay for it so I'll kill that yapping dog next door and while I'm at it, send the neighbor to the hospital with my baseball bat,  and wreck his garage door in the process... !)
 
Top Bottom