Kubota M5660SUHD caught on fire (60hrs)!

[ruffdog]

Maybe the dealer/customer just doesn't like the situation. Who is paying? Who is liable? Who is getting sued? The customer is hard to work with? The dealer only wants easy money? We don't know but only a small part of the story so we must keep an open mind.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

Interesting takes. Truly, Kubota owns the tractor, because of the lein. If there is no insurance, they are really on the hook for how it gets repaired since they have all of the risk in the situation. Insurance transfers risk from the lein holder and purchaser to a third party. Now, that risk is on Kubota, because they will eat it no matter what happens.

 

[hayden]

Interesting takes. Truly, Kubota owns the tractor, because of the lein. If there is no insurance, they are really on the hook for how it gets repaired since they have all of the risk in the situation. Insurance transfers risk from the lein holder and purchaser to a third party. Now, that risk is on Kubota, because they will eat it no matter what happens.

A lien doesn't make one an owner. The owner owns the tractor, and the lender has a lien which gives them certain rights, including a right to repossess and take ownership. The owner is the one on the hook to repay the loan. Otherwise he's in default, the tractor will be repossessed, and he will have a loan default on his credit history and will have a hard time borrowing money again.

Furthermore, if the loan requires that he maintain insurance, and he has not, then the lender will come after him personally to recover the loan value since the tractor isn't worth squat.

So I think the owner is the one with a really big problem, but he doesn't seem to realize it or care.

 

[Torvy]

Yes, and in this case the OP is legally in default because he did not obtain the required insurance.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

A lien doesn't make one an owner. The owner owns the tractor, and the lender has a lien which gives them certain rights, including a right to repossess and take ownership. The owner is the one on the hook to repay the loan. Otherwise he's in default, the tractor will be repossessed, and he will have a loan default on his credit history and will have a hard time borrowing money again.

Furthermore, if the loan requires that he maintain insurance, and he has not, then the lender will come after him personally to recover the loan value since the tractor isn't worth squat.

So I think the owner is the one with a really big problem, but he doesn't seem to realize it or care.

All true… but the tractor is the only collateral. The buyer can absolutely decide to default. The tractor is then auctioned, and the buyer responsible for the difference. Kubota is left holding the bag until this all plays out.

 

[WinterDeere]

I’m more interested in cause of fire, on a nearly new machine, than who’s in default.

 

[fbitz777]

I'm confused. Who is the legal owner of this tractor? You, the dealer, or third-party lender? If either of the latter two, why not retrieve it from the dealer today?

I own it. The reason for not retrieving it yet is my lawyer told me to keep it at dealer.
As well as transport cost they charge each way ($200) and these added up on my other tractor as it took 3 roundtrips for them to fix a PTO clutch.

 

[fbitz777]

Is the tractor insured, or not? We still don't have a straight answer on that. If insured, sorting all this out is up to the insurance company, but you need to file a claim.

The tractor was not insured at the time of the fire. for As I said my insurance co (home insurance) had provided a rider for it at delivery but neve billed me.

I did insure the new tractor (M6060) and it was not very expensive. However State Farms is still asking questions about it (location/ use,...) which makes me nervous about them being able to fight a similar claim.

 

[TractorTech]

Back to the dealers' view that it is not under warranty. Exactly how did they figure that?
Years ago we had a tractor that Ford did not want to warranty. The problem was the kill cable rubbed through the harness. They initially said it was wear and tear, therefore not warrantable. When I explained that the cable was improperly routed and the possibility of a short could have resulted in a fire, the warranty was honored.
Sometimes the whole picture isn't played out or someone is too lazy to do the proper investigating.

 

[Torvy]

Occam’s razor

A guiding principle of logic exhorting us to keep things as simple as possible.

www.newscientist.com

Most tractor fires are not warranty issues, but insurance issues. It is the insurance company that typically does further investigation to avoid having to pay. The whole problem here is that the OP did not insure the tractor. This is one of two facts in evidence. (The other being there was a fire)

Think of it like this, if you get a flat tire and find a nail in said tire, you rarely will investigate to determine why they tire was flat. While it is possible that it was flat due to some design failure, the simplest solution (and most likely) is that the nail caused the flat. People who default to "it is someone else's fault" are part of the problem with modern society. Sue first. Smh.