AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › How much is fair?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How much is fair?

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
If any of you were going to settle with a warranty company and they were going to cut you a check for a defective TV, how much (IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE of the original purchase) would you require?

Say the T.V. is 3 years old and is covered on a 4 year warranty.

Or would you require a newer set of the old version of the T.V.?
post #2 of 31
Unless there is some provision in the contract that provides for a specific remedy, then I would expect the fair market value which is probably 15% of original MSRP
post #3 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by omeletpants View Post

Unless there is some provision in the contract that provides for a specific remedy, then I would expect the fair market value which is probably 15% of original MSRP

Only 15%? So let's just say, and I cant even remember what the MSRP of my set was, that the MSRP is $4,000. You would only require $600 after only using the T.V. for 3 years?

That doesn't compute with me. Care to share you rationale?

By the way, I am being proactive - I have not been offered anything as of yet, but I have a feeling they will try and offer me a check.
post #4 of 31
If I had a 3 year old set with a 4 year warranty, I would expect my set to either be repaired or replaced at no cost to me.
post #5 of 31
What would your expectations be if the TV was 3 months old? Still under warranty is still under warranty regardless if it's the first week into it or the last week into it...that's the whole reason behind an extended warranty. Unless there is specific mention in the contract of some type of pro-rated value I would expext it to be fixed or a replacement set of equal value.
post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielwd View Post

Only 15%? So let's just say, and I cant even remember what the MSRP of my set was, that the MSRP is $4,000. You would only require $600 after only using the T.V. for 3 years?

That doesn't compute with me. Care to share you rationale?

By the way, I am being proactive - I have not been offered anything as of yet, but I have a feeling they will try and offer me a check.

It's based upon street value. If you had to sell on eBay what would it be worth? Not much.

I can't believe that there isn't something in your warranty contract that specifies the remedy and procedure in this event. It happens daily and they address it
post #7 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by topr View Post

What would your expectations be if the TV was 3 months old? Still under warranty is still under warranty regardless if it's the first week into it or the last week into it...that's the whole reason behind an extended warranty. Unless there is specific mention in the contract of some type of pro-rated value I would expext it to be fixed or a replacement set of equal value.

Fully agree. Unless the warranty mentions pro-rating, I would expect it to be replaced with a TV of similar quality.
post #8 of 31
Thread Starter 
Thank you all for your input - keep it coming as I am very curious about what's going to happen!

One reason why I'm nervous is I'm dealing with the company that took over Circuit City's warranty programs - Assurant Solutions.

So far they were good to replace the DLP bulb, but now the light engine is bad. They are assessing the situation now.

I am very nervous about going back into the DLP realm, especially now that I have a Samsung LED LCD in my bedroom and love it.

I dont care either way, because I loved the Mit. DLP when it worked, but now with the white dots, and what I've read about the white dot issues being as widespread among ALL DLP's, I'm thinkin' LCD!

The first thing I'm going to do when I get home is dig out the warranty information from the filing cabinet!
post #9 of 31
I would hold the warranty company to the terms of the contract. As said above, whatever provisions are spelled out in your extended warranty would be the way you'd have to go.
post #10 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by topr View Post

What would your expectations be if the TV was 3 months old? Still under warranty is still under warranty regardless if it's the first week into it or the last week into it...that's the whole reason behind an extended warranty. Unless there is specific mention in the contract of some type of pro-rated value I would expext it to be fixed or a replacement set of equal value.

Exactly. The only kind of "depreciation" you should see if they decide to replace (instead of repairing) the TV would be if a similar TV costs less money today. For example if you bought a 46" TV years ago with certain features and it cost $2500, today a 46" set with the roughly the same (and proably some better) features might cost $1000. So I'd say it's fair for them to replace it with that TV despite the fact that $2500 today would buy you a larger and/or better set.

However the exact terms of how replacements are given is, as everyone else said, going to be spelled out in your extended warranty contract which regardless of what you think is fair or not, is what you signed/agreed to when you purchased it.
post #11 of 31
Thread Starter 
The City Advantage warranty I purchased from Circuit City, backed by Assurant Solutions proclaims:

"If the covered Product is deemed non-repairable, at the sole determination of the
Service Provider or its designee, We will replace it with a product of equal or similar features and functionality, though not necessarily of the same brand."

...So we shall see! There is a "no lemon" guarantee that submits the product must be repaired twice before they will replace the product within the same terms as stated above. Technically, the "no lemon" guarantee is probably where I would be because the tv simply needs a new light engine. But the lingering question to me, is would they be more likely to just replace the tv entirely as it could be cheaper in the long run or even just cut me a check for what a similar tv would be today.
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielwd View Post

The City Advantage warranty I purchased from Circuit City, backed by Assurant Solutions proclaims:

"If the covered Product is deemed non-repairable, at the sole determination of the
Service Provider or its designee, We will replace it with a product of equal or similar features and functionality, though not necessarily of the same brand."

...So we shall see! There is a "no lemon" guarantee that submits the product must be repaired twice before they will replace the product within the same terms as stated above. Technically, the "no lemon" guarantee is probably where I would be because the tv simply needs a new light engine. But the lingering question to me, is would they be more likely to just replace the tv entirely as it could be cheaper in the long run or even just cut me a check for what a similar tv would be today.

The no lemon guarantee is secondary to the "deemed non-repairable" part. Your TV is probably being covered by the non-repairable clause but either way it's the same result.

"Non-repairable" to the warranty company/underwriter is much the same as it works with say an automobile involved in an accident. When the cost to repair the car is greater than the cost to replace it, it gets "written off" and the insurance company gives you money to buy a similar make/model/year car based on the approximate value. Of course with TVs we don't get into used products as we do with cars, but it's the same principle. Light engines are not cheap to replace with manufacturer-provided parts, not to mention the labour involved by the company contracted to do the repairs. If it's going to cost them $1500 or something in cash payout to have the TV repaired but the cost for them on a new TV is some $800 or so, obviously they are going to pick the latter and tell you to take a new TV. Usually they don't "cut a cheque" per se because they usually have deals with various manufacturers* and/or retail outlets to buy these TVs at a cost price you would not typically see in stores. I.e. They aren't going to give you money to go buy a set from Best Lie at $1000 when the set costs Best Lie $850--they aren't in business to make them or anyone else money (unless they are part of BB or whatever retailer or have an agreement through them, which is often the case but not here since CC went out of business). Instead they are buying the set just like BB for $850, and then giving it to you. There are of course exceptions but this is usually how it works.

*Hence where the term "not necessarily the same manufacturer" comes from. They probably have deals with certain manufacturers to buy TVs for replacement but don't have all manufacturers. So if you have a Mitsubishi and you ask for another Mitsu and don't have Mitsu sets, they get out of having to give you one by that little line in the warranty statement.

Anyway they're more than glad to do replace the TV though because it saves them money. In your case it sounds like you want a new TV so it's a win-win (most people usually do prefer to get a newer/more modern set). On the other hand if you actually really wanted the TV to be repaired they would probably tell you you're SOL because by the terms they get to determine what is and isn't "non-repairable"--in that case you'd have to take one of the new TV options anyway.
post #13 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ES_Revenge View Post

The no lemon guarantee is secondary to the "deemed non-repairable" part. Your TV is probably being covered by the non-repairable clause but either way it's the same result.

"Non-repairable" to the warranty company/underwriter is much the same as it works with say an automobile involved in an accident. When the cost to repair the car is greater than the cost to replace it, it gets "written off" and the insurance company gives you money to buy a similar make/model/year car based on the approximate value. Of course with TVs we don't get into used products as we do with cars, but it's the same principle. Light engines are not cheap to replace with manufacturer-provided parts, not to mention the labour involved by the company contracted to do the repairs. If it's going to cost them $1500 or something in cash payout to have the TV repaired but the cost for them on a new TV is some $800 or so, obviously they are going to pick the latter and tell you to take a new TV. Usually they don't "cut a cheque" per se because they usually have deals with various manufacturers* and/or retail outlets to buy these TVs at a cost price you would not typically see in stores. I.e. They aren't going to give you money to go buy a set from Best Lie at $1000 when the set costs Best Lie $850--they aren't in business to make them or anyone else money (unless they are part of BB or whatever retailer or have an agreement through them, which is often the case but not here since CC went out of business). Instead they are buying the set just like BB for $850, and then giving it to you. There are of course exceptions but this is usually how it works.

*Hence where the term "not necessarily the same manufacturer" comes from. They probably have deals with certain manufacturers to buy TVs for replacement but don't have all manufacturers. So if you have a Mitsubishi and you ask for another Mitsu and don't have Mitsu sets, they get out of having to give you one by that little line in the warranty statement.

Anyway they're more than glad to do replace the TV though because it saves them money. In your case it sounds like you want a new TV so it's a win-win (most people usually do prefer to get a newer/more modern set). On the other hand if you actually really wanted the TV to be repaired they would probably tell you you're SOL because by the terms they get to determine what is and isn't "non-repairable"--in that case you'd have to take one of the new TV options anyway.

Thank you for your input - sounds like you have some experience with this stuff.

And I probably would go for a completely new unit because I am nervous about gutting an existing set like that. I'm sure the new light engine would probably be fine, its just the idea.

I understand they will do what's best for their wallet - and I dont mind, as long as I get a working 73" 1080p set.

Mitsubishi is the only manufacturer of DLP sets, especially of this size, so I think they would be forced to stay with the same manufacturer.

Its going to be interesting because I believe a new Mit. DLP 73" (same specifications as my T.V.) is going to run about 1800 at Best Buy, and I'm sure they could get it cheaper - say probably 1000. I'm sure 1000 is much less than replacing a light engine. The light engine was quoted at 750 from the contractor wanting to do the work, then add labor, and I'm sure it will be well above the 1000 mark.

One question I do have is, do they have to replace my T.V. with another 73" one? Could they try and screw me on that and offer me a 65"?

I bet I get a new T.V., and hopefully its 73". I'll let everyone know how it pans out.
post #14 of 31
daniel, I am going through almost the exact same experience as you. My Mits 57 inch Dlp (purchased at CC) has been deemed unrepairable by assurant solutions. They told me that they are going to replace it with a comparable televison. They are supposed to contact me in a day or two and give me a choice of models to choose from (they did say it was to be a brand new tv, not a refurbised one). I asked them if I didn't like any of those models, what would happen at that point. They told me that they could send my a check and I could purchase a tv on my own.

I agree with you that it will be hard for them give very many comparable options since Mits seems to be the only Dlp manufacture left.

I'll keep you updated on my experience, and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.
post #15 of 31
Please do keep us updated. I'm soon going to be dealing with Assurant Solutions as well and I would like to see how it turned out for you guys.
post #16 of 31
Assurant Solutions called this morning with their offer of replacement for my 2006 Mits WD-Y57. They offered me a brand new WD-60638 with a stand. If I don't want this TV I could take a $950 check instead.

Thinking of taking the TV instead of the cash. Shopped around today and I can't get close to a 60 inch TV for $950. I tried to negotiate a little but they would not haggle at all. I'm actually pretty pleased with their offer but you I had to try.

BTW the TV would come from Tigerdirect.com
post #17 of 31
I went through this situation with ServiceNet on my 3-year warranty on my KDL-52BXR6, when the repair costs on it exceeded $5K. The T&C in their contract said that they'd provide an equivalent set or the monetary amount equivalent.

They opted out to provide either a KDL-52EX700 as a no-cost replacement for my XBR6 or provide me a check for $1649. I went back and forth with them about their definition of "equivalent set" for a few weeks and eventually decided to take the money and pass on the EX700, from the info I read in the EX700 threads.

I took my money and applied it towards a LG 55LE8500 from the Big River store and I'm more than happy I did, as it's a much better set than the EX700 would have been.
post #18 of 31
Thread Starter 
An update for my Mit. 73473 set in terms of Assurant Solutions. I have been on the phone for an hour today - in fact I am on the phone on hold now. This has turned out to be a nightmare - it has taken hours of time (I dont have - I am working on my doctorate).

They cant seem to locate records and of course everyone is Indian and they can barely speak English.

They cant seem to find an authorized Mitsubishi dealer that can order the light engine and replace it. I am within 30 minutes to Charlotte NC and I cannot believe there is not a TV company in Charlotte that's cut out for this job.

Anyways, I will post back, but right now these people look like a bunch of unorganized fools. They have opened 4 freakin' new "case #'s", and they cant seem to get anything right.
post #19 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap11 View Post

Assurant Solutions called this morning with their offer of replacement for my 2006 Mits WD-Y57. They offered me a brand new WD-60638 with a stand. If I don't want this TV I could take a $950 check instead.

Thinking of taking the TV instead of the cash. Shopped around today and I can't get close to a 60 inch TV for $950. I tried to negotiate a little but they would not haggle at all. I'm actually pretty pleased with their offer but you I had to try.

BTW the TV would come from Tigerdirect.com

If you dont mind me askin', how much did you pay originally?

I think that's ridiculous to pay for an extended warranty and then only get a "partial" refund or a substandard set. The warranty should cover the T.V. or the cost of a new one as close as possible to the original set purchased.
post #20 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap11 View Post

daniel, I am going through almost the exact same experience as you. My Mits 57 inch Dlp (purchased at CC) has been deemed unrepairable by assurant solutions. They told me that they are going to replace it with a comparable televison. They are supposed to contact me in a day or two and give me a choice of models to choose from (they did say it was to be a brand new tv, not a refurbised one). I asked them if I didn't like any of those models, what would happen at that point. They told me that they could send my a check and I could purchase a tv on my own.

I agree with you that it will be hard for them give very many comparable options since Mits seems to be the only Dlp manufacture left.

I'll keep you updated on my experience, and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

I will keep everyone updated as I hope everyone else does.

But be aware - DLP's do not sound like a safe bet to me. I think these DMD boards are going to fail more and more. The hardware cant keep up with the heat, I dont think.

I would be more than happy to take a check, but not for a minimized amount. I want something fair. I'd be nervous about another DLP set altogether.
post #21 of 31
Quote:


If you dont mind me askin', how much did you pay originally?

I really don't remember, it was late 2006. I think it was somewhere around $1700. But I may be wrong about that.

I went through the same thing with Assurant, once I was finally transferred to their "customer relations" dept. (or whatever they call it) things went much better. I was talking to people that I could understand, and while they were very slow, they would call me back. Eventually things worked out, but it took about 4 weeks.

I know what you mean about being scared of the DLP but I really didn't have too many choices. A replacement DLP is what they offered me or I could take the cash. I wanted to take the cash and get a plasma or LCD. However when I started looking I realized that my $950 cash offer wasnt' gonna get me very close to a comparable screen size. I could have put some $$ with it but I've got a daughter in college right now so my disposable income is pretty tight right now .

All in all I'd have to say I'm somewhat satisfied with how things worked out (at least so far, the TV should be delivered next week). I've got a new 2010 DLP with a slightly larger screen size than I had before.

I'll predict that they offer you a new Mits 73638 or $1,600 in cash. Just a guess but I bet it's not too far off
post #22 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap11 View Post

I really don't remember, it was late 2006. I think it was somewhere around $1700. But I may be wrong about that.

I went through the same thing with Assurant, once I was finally transferred to their "customer relations" dept. (or whatever they call it) things went much better. I was talking to people that I could understand, and while they were very slow, they would call me back. Eventually things worked out, but it took about 4 weeks.

I know what you mean about being scared of the DLP but I really didn't have too many choices. A replacement DLP is what they offered me or I could take the cash. I wanted to take the cash and get a plasma or LCD. However when I started looking I realized that my $950 cash offer wasnt' gonna get me very close to a comparable screen size. I could have put some $$ with it but I've got a daughter in college right now so my disposable income is pretty tight right now .

All in all I'd have to say I'm somewhat satisfied with how things worked out (at least so far, the TV should be delivered next week). I've got a new 2010 DLP with a slightly larger screen size than I had before.

I'll predict that they offer you a new Mits 73638 or $1,600 in cash. Just a guess but I bet it's not too far off

Yes, I thought that also, but we were wrong.

Come to find out it is much more expensive to replace a 73" than it is to REBUILD the light engine. Yes, that is right - I finally talked to a customer relations official, who didn't have their head up their butt.

I hate this option but it makes sense for them on their part. She said that the bigger the screen size, the less it makes sense for them to cut checks or get people new T.V.'s.

It pisses me off, but I just want a working tv.

I'm wondering if this is legal or ethical for them to do - REBUILD my light engine and replace it? Shouldn't it at least be a brand new light engine?
post #23 of 31
Well it looks like i will be in the same boat. My samsung lnt5271 has been deemed unrepairable. I paid almost 2900 dollars for this tv two years ago. I am waiting for assurant to let me know what they will be offering as replacement/check? I wonder what I can expect. This tv was samsungs top of the line 52 inch lcd 120hz refresh rate at the time.
post #24 of 31
To me, a warranty means that I will have a TV of (at least) comparable quality and features for the life of the warranty.

Quote:


If any of you were going to settle with a warranty company and they were going to cut you a check for a defective TV, how much (IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE of the original purchase) would you require?

"PERCENTAGE of the original purchase" means nothing. If the TV cost $10,000 then, but a comparable TV is $1500 now (and they cannot fix the original), then I would expect a new $1500 set now. That would be 15% of the original purchase. If the TV cost $1500 then but a comparable set is $750 now, I would expect the $750 now (50% of the original price).

You expect to be "made whole". That does not mean that if you spent $10,000 on a cutting edge set, you should expect to get a new $10,000 cutting edge set. That means that you should expect to get the size and features of that cutting edge set (then) on a new set today. Often, that "cutting edge" costs 75% less today. So be it. You should expect a set that offers the same viewing experience as your previous set if they cannot fix your previous set.
post #25 of 31
Thread Starter 
There is still not resolution at this point with Assurant. They turned down Precision TV out of Greensboro NC, probably because they wanted more than what Assurant would pay for a new set.

Now they've got Audio/Video Repair coming out tomorrow. Both Precision TV and Audio/Video Repair have been great to work with, but Assurant SUCKS! I think Assurant will turn down Audo/Video repair's estimate also. I might be wrong, but I'm bettin' on it.

It's been over a month now, and the next step for me is Better Business.
post #26 of 31
my family had a mitsu back when 45" was huge and real wood was used for the cabinet, granted it was a RPTV but we had nothing but problems trying to get it fixed after 7 or so years. I'm not surprised to hear about having this much trouble trying to fix a mitsu set.
post #27 of 31
After sending a tv repar service to my house and authourizing either a replacement tv or a check for 1099.99 I opted for the check. They said i would recieve it within 7-14 days. its been 14 days and everytime i call to find out were the check is they keep putting me on hold and then if they do come back and i am still on they start to say something then hang up on me. My question is has anyone on here ever recived an actual check from them. If not could someone help me on what to do next with this awful warranty company. Thanks
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike424242
I went through this situation with ServiceNet on my 3-year warranty on my KDL-52BXR6, when the repair costs on it exceeded $5K. The T&C in their contract said that they'd provide an equivalent set or the monetary amount equivalent.

They opted out to provide either a KDL-52EX700 as a no-cost replacement for my XBR6 or provide me a check for $1649. I went back and forth with them about their definition of "equivalent set" for a few weeks and eventually decided to take the money and pass on the EX700, from the info I read in the EX700 threads.

I took my money and applied it towards a LG 55LE8500 from the Big River store and I'm more than happy I did, as it's a much better set than the EX700 would have been.
Did they actually send u a check and if so how long did it take to get it. 14 days and I am still waiting for mine. Thanks
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielwd View Post

If any of you were going to settle with a warranty company and they were going to cut you a check for a defective TV, how much (IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE of the original purchase) would you require?

Say the T.V. is 3 years old and is covered on a 4 year warranty.

Or would you require a newer set of the old version of the T.V.?

I would expect to be compensated exactly what it would cost me to replace a comparable set of todays model and nothing less. They sell the warranty banking on that the set won't break. When one does then they are stuck having to replace it. Don't let them try and sell you short.
post #30 of 31
Here is my just in case advice...there are a lot of back and forth phone calls going on to resolve this issue so start keeping notes of the dates, times and persons you have talked to in case your problems continue. Also, the mention of Attorney General tends to get the ball rolling.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: LCD Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › How much is fair?