Samsung not being forthcoming with fire damage reimbursement?

[lizardchest]

I had a pre- and post-recall Note 7. I had zero issues with either phone. While I definitely believe that Samsung could have done the recall better, I didn't feel too put out by all the exchanges/purchases (4 phones in 5 weeks); I don't think they could've predicted the issue the N7 had, and it was a massive effort to try to pull the phones from the market.
However, I'm now reading reports that they are dragging their feet reimbursing the relatively few amount of people who had fires:
Samsung is refusing to pay for property damage caused by its exploding Note 7 phone | ExtremeTech

I still have my S7E, and I still think Samsung makes great products. I've done plenty of "fanboy excuse making" for them to my friends. But this kind of customer service is not something I can defend to anyone. It's really inexcusable and I think will tarnish their image more than the actual phone issues. How has their customer service team not been out in front of this, showing without a doubt that they care about the user and want to make things right?

 

[ultravisitor]

This is not the first time I've heard of poor customer service experiences with Samsung. It's just making news now because of the Note 7 debacle.

 

[jgraves1107]

The major issue is that when the fire department investigated and could not determine the Note 7 caused the fire it left Samsung and the Insurance company an out. So if they used a cheap cable that burned up in the fire which is possible and could be missed then they won't pay. This is most disturbing as it still says the fires were not the actual device but may have been caused by something else. The fire department in this case has pretty much said not one was actually caused by the phone. They won't pay for damages when this happens.

 

[lizardchest]

I understand that they legally have an out.
But following the letter of the law and doing the right thing don't always intersect. I do understand that just making it rain on anyone who claimed to have an issue caused by an N7 would result in a few/some/a lot of false claims, and I don't have an answer on how to mitigate fraud in this case (Maybe have a cutoff date of the last recall for coverage? Prosecute viciously any proven fraudulent claims? I can't think of a really good solution...). I personally believe that paying out on all the (probable) legit cases and a couple of fraudulent ones is better than not covering any (probable) legit cases at all. (As in the legal standard, "It's better to have a guilty man to go free, than have an innocent man in jail.")

 

[keepnitreel]

The fire in Richmond Va was too close to home for me and gave me a quick reality check. The guy is a friend of a coworker of mine and I remember her leaving early from work to see if she could talk to the Samsung rep (regarding her N7) that flew in to see the guy. Rep wouldn't talk to her.

 

[1213 1213]

Maybe people should stop expecting special service when using a device under recall? Samsung is technically doing the ethical thing by letting people understand the cost and thereby encouraging people to return it. So yeah, while maybe they should help this person more even when they aren't legally culpable, but it is important to see things in perspective, it isn't all bad.

 

[lizardchest]

Maybe people should stop expecting special service when using a device under recall?

I was specifically referring to the original, pre-recall N7 users who had property damage from their phones. I think keeping a device after a recall absolves the company from most liabilty, as long as a good faith effort to inform users of the recall and the dangers of keeping the device. I don't think they should get a spa weekend in Helsinki, but c'mon Samsung, pay for the property damage to be repaired (even if not strictly required to by law), you know?

 

[jgraves1107]

There again would you pay if the fire department said it wasn't your cigarette that started the fire? It's not like people this day and age actually think about chargers and cables being an issue. They just buy whatever when they need one. My wife keeps having a charging issue with here 12 inch Samsung tablet. Slow as all get out. Guess what. No matter how many times I hand her the original cable and charger she still hooks it to the s7 charger and cable. There again it will be her fault if that tablet burns up. Yes saving face would be the most important to us. But if they pay off claims that are not proven to be the device then they admit it was all them. Just like Apple saying your holding your phone wrong. We still have yet to hear if the N7 on the plane was an actual case of the phone or was it damaged already.

 

[lizardchest]

There again would you pay if the fire department said it wasn't your cigarette that started the fire?

I'm not one of the world's largest companies, that needs to save face in the wake of a disastrous flagship phone launch. They have the revenue to cover property damage to save face.
I don't have a good answer regarding fraud. But as I said above, I'd rather see frauds get paid out along with legit cases, than to have legit cases not covered at all. This is more about the optics of Samsung looking greasy for searching for reasons not to stand behind the damage (likely) caused by faulty product.
How many people do you know that aren't following this whole N7 story arc as close as you, me, and the other regulars on AC??? They don't know or care about the peripherals that may have caused the issue. All they (the general public) see is "Samsung phones exploded! Samsung's not covering property damage!"
It's really an optics issue to me; how do you want your company to look in the eyes of the general public? A company that doesn't hesitate to believe their customers (even though 10% may be lying) or a company that looks for legal excuses to leave customers out to dry? Right or wrong, they have an image to maintain and I don't think their actions are holding water.

 

[Viscomi4444]

I really don't get the problem here. Are you saying Samsung should pay for all damages even though it wasn't their products fault? If Samsung were to do that, then there would be coming out of the woodwork.

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

There again would you pay if the fire department said it wasn't your cigarette that started the fire?

This was clearly from a Note 7



I don't care if you had a garden hose connected and were flushing it with water, the phone was designed to shut down before this happens. Samsung is not helping get this desk replaced.


Having said that, I understand why they refer people with claims to their insurance company — that's why they have it. But if the insurance underwriter is not helping people with valid claims, this makes Samsung look bad. If it were my comoany I would intervene and take care of the customers then fight with insurance myself for reimbursement.

But I admit I would make for a very bad businessman

 

[lizardchest]

Are you saying Samsung should pay for all damages even though it wasn't their products fault?

If the N7 had no faults, and the entire issue was with 3rd party chargers/whatever, I don't think they would've issued a recall at the cost of an estimated $17 billion...right? If Samsung truly believes that the phone is not defective, that would mean that they discontinued it due solely to the general public's view of the Note 7, right? If they discontinued it due solely to public perception, why wouldn't they process these claims for the same reason; to show a good faith effort to make consumers "whole" , to use the linked article's words.
Clearly we don't know exactly why phones were going up in smoke, but there were enough cases to make a good argument that there is something inherently wrong with the N7. I think Samsung would be viewed better (in a customer service way) if they did not try to look for reasons to deny coverage, or if their insurance provider denies coverage, paying out of their own pocket. There will obviously be fraud (which I've addressed in previous posts on this thread). However, the possible threat of maybe-fraudulent claims should not supersede "doing right" by the people who suffered loss (financial, property, etc.).
Further, I specifically was referring to the first batch of N7s that were sold (post #7) and caused the issues that triggered a recall. If a device is defective enough to warrant a recall of 2.5 million phones, then yeah, I think Samsung should reimburse people for burned carpets, nightstands, garages, etc.
Denying all claims because maybe some goofball is going to file for $5k saying he burned his pants is not a very good look for a global company. Sometimes a company just has to accept that a certain percentage of claims are going to be fraudulent, suck it up, and make it right for the people who have legitimate claims.

 

[lizardchest]

But if the insurance underwriter is not helping people with valid claims, this makes Samsung look bad. If it were my comoany I would intervene and take care of the customers then fight with insurance myself for reimbursement.

I think you explained what I was saying better than me.

 

[ThrottleJohnny]

To me, this is between Samsung and the folks making the claims. I don't have an opinion really because I don't know the whole story in any of these cases.

It would be nice is Samsung wrote a huge check and just covered everything, but we know that's just not the way the world works.

In the real world there is about 7 trillion yards of red tape to work through, and I'm just glad I never bothered with a Note 7, and I'm glad I don't work in an important capacity for Samsung.

Just a nightmare.

 

[lizardchest]

The fire department in this case has pretty much said not one was actually caused by the phone.

vs

This is most disturbing as it still says the fires were not the actual device but may have been caused by something else.

The leeway in these statements...
The phone obviously had enough issues to warrant an unprecedented recall - either for real reasons or because the "Note 7" name was so damaged. If it was either of those reasons, customer service should be priority number one, imo. Don't treat your customers as liars by default. Acknowledging that the phone has an issue (which Samsung did, whether or not FDs agree...) but refusing to cover damages just looks greasy.

 

[lizardchest]

To me, this is between Samsung and the folks making the claims.

For sure. I don't have a dog in the fight.
But seeing how they treat other consumers is going to influence my opinion of Samsung. It's called empathy.
As far as I can tell, the phones going up in smoke was totally random, across the world. It could've happened to anybody's phone, even mine. If it had happened to mine and Samsung was being evasive in covering my losses, I could imagine how I would feel.

 

[ThrottleJohnny]

For sure. I don't have a dog in the fight.
But seeing how they treat other consumers is going to influence my opinion of Samsung. It's called empathy.
As far as I can tell, the phones going up in smoke was totally random, across the world. It could've happened to anybody's phone, even mine. If it had happened to mine and Samsung was being evasive in covering my losses, I could imagine how I would feel.

For sure. Let's hope Samsung steps up and eventually does the right thing. I know they are mired in muck right now, but I hope that doesn't stop them from eventually working through all of this mess.

 

[jgraves1107]

I'm not one of the world's largest companies, that needs to save face in the wake of a disastrous flagship phone launch. They have the revenue to cover property damage to save face.
I don't have a good answer regarding fraud. But as I said above, I'd rather see frauds get paid out along with legit cases, than to have legit cases not covered at all. This is more about the optics of Samsung looking greasy for searching for reasons not to stand behind the damage (likely) caused by faulty product.
How many people do you know that aren't following this whole N7 story arc as close as you, me, and the other regulars on AC??? They don't know or care about the peripherals that may have caused the issue. All they (the general public) see is "Samsung phones exploded! Samsung's not covering property damage!"
It's really an optics issue to me; how do you want your company to look in the eyes of the general public? A company that doesn't hesitate to believe their customers (even though 10% may be lying) or a company that looks for legal excuses to leave customers out to dry? Right or wrong, they have an image to maintain and I don't think their actions are holding water.

Yes I do see your point. I'm sure at some point Samsung will see that as well. From that countries standpoint they do not do things the way we would do them. They don't see it as pr but as a disgrace to pay if not proven. They should have done as Apple and so many others do. Pay the money, give them new phones, here's your papers, sign them if you want it. It's like this. If my N7 had gone up Samsung could have given me a new phone for the entire family and $10,000 and no media would have seen squat.