Screen cracked after one week!!!

[pauldroidr2d2]

It need not even come down to morality/ethics--fraud is illegal, opening up the party committing the fraud to civil and criminal penalties.

But hey, who cares, right? :-$

Clearly the mental gymnastics required to justify this by some here shows that.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[E.T.]

Ever hear the saying two wrongs do not make a right?

The lack of character and integrity displayed by some is pathetic.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

If you want to discuss morality, I'm sure there are many great religion/ethics/morality/philosophy forums out there. If you want to discuss the "back in my day, kids had respect!" and "Gah, kids these days!" trains of thought, I'm sure there's a good place for that.

But this is really just a forum for android, phones, and helping people resolve phone issues. It seems to me that being sanctimonious really isn't going to help the OP or anyone else for that matter.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the OP deserves a free new phone, either. But I also don't feel the need to talk down to him/her or call him "pathetic." My morals are just that - my morals.

 

[Terrigno]

There really is no way to discuss or debate an issue such as this when there is clear lack of values and willingness to justify at best questionable actions.

The fact that you feel your role as an Advisor is to encourage people to do the wrong thing is sad at best. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

My role as an advisor can be stripped from me and there would be no hard feelings. The OP can do what he wants to do. But Im not going to cry about it and say hes doing fraud. He does what he wants to do. Ill do what I have to do also. And being an Advisor has no outlook on Asurion and Verizon or how they make there company. Im stating my opinion. Call me fraud, Call me what you want. Start paying my bills and Ill do what you say. Im not ashamend of nothing. Im not mad either. Are you? You mad?

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

My role as an advisor can be stripped from me and there would be no hard feelings. The OP can do what he wants to do. But Im not going to cry about it and say hes doing fraud. He does what he wants to do. Ill do what I have to do also. And being an Advisor has no outlook on Asurion and Verizon or how they make there company. Im stating my opinion. Call me fraud, Call me what you want. Start paying my bills and Ill do what you say. Im not ashamend of nothing. Im not mad either. Are you? You mad?

I'm not mad.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

If you want to discuss morality, I'm sure there are many great religion/ethics/morality/philosophy forums out there. If you want to discuss the "back in my day, kids had respect!" and "Gah, kids these days!" trains of thought, I'm sure there's a good place for that.

But this is really just a forum for android, phones, and helping people resolve phone issues. It seems to me that being sanctimonious really isn't going to help the OP or anyone else for that matter.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the OP deserves a free new phone, either. But I also don't feel the need to talk down to him/her or call him "pathetic." My morals are just that - my morals.

It is a basic issue of right and wrong. What the OP and some others are suggesting is just flat out wrong to do.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[E.T.]

Clearly the mental gymnastics required to justify this by some here shows that.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

You don't have to agree with it, but the argument is pretty simple, actually.

If Asurion, a billion-dollar company, did not want to risk this exact scenario, they could easily require adding insurance right at time of sale. Based on their analysis, whatever that is, they decided that 30 days is the most profitable policy.

If the OP learns from this experience and adds insurance, maybe he costs Asurion $400 in a refurb Galaxy Nexus they got from Verizon or Samsung. The OP pays the $100 deductible. So thats now only $300 to them. If the OP leaves the insurance on for the 24 month life of his contract, Asurion or whoever the insurance is with generally charge between $7 to 10/month. That's another $168 to $240.

Basically, if he keeps the insurance past his current contract, they've STILL made money on him! And remember, this is the "worst" possible customer they could possibly have. Most of their customers wil never file a claim, and are pure profit.

 

[E.T.]

It is a basic issue of right and wrong. What the OP and some others are suggesting is just flat out wrong to do.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Wrong to you. Everyone lives by their own moral code.

If Verizon/Asurion wanted to prevent this exact situation, they easily could. They could require buying insurance at time of purchase. They have instead chosen a 30 day window.

Also, insurance companies have the option to check the device BEFORE allowing the insurance to be added. In fact most insurance companies do this. If they dont, it is likely because they decided that it was cheaper to them to allow insurance to be added without inspecting phones for damage ahead of time.

 

[dmmarck]

Wrong to you. Everyone lives by their own moral code.

If Verizon/Asurion wanted to prevent this exact situation, they easily could. They could require buying insurance at time of purchase. They have instead chosen a 30 day window.

Also, insurance companies have the option to check the device BEFORE allowing the insurance to be added. In fact most insurance companies do this. If they dont, it is likely because they decided that it was cheaper to them to allow insurance to be added without inspecting phones for damage ahead of time.

Being wrong to him or anyone else is one thing; being illegal is another. Let's just make sure we're on the same footing here; it's not just a matter of going to church on Sunday and giving the poor your money. Fraud is illegal, and it carries with it a variety of neat little gifts. And that's regardless of your, mine, or anyone else's morality.

That's regardless of how much money they make, how much money Verizon makes, how "evil" of a corporation either are, etc. None of that stuff removes the taint of illegality, and talking like it does is somewhat silly.

Oh well, obviously the OP will do as he wishes.

 

[E.T.]

Being wrong to him or anyone else is one thing; being illegal is another. Let's just make sure we're on the same footing here; it's not just a matter of going to church on Sunday and giving the poor your money. Fraud is illegal, and it carries with it a variety of neat little gifts. And that's regardless of your, mine, or anyone else's morality.

That's regardless of how much money they make, how much money Verizon makes, how "evil" of a corporation either are, etc. None of that stuff removes the taint of illegality, and talking like it does is somewhat silly.

Oh well, obviously the OP will do as he wishes.

I agree with you 100%; legality is a whole different debate from the morality of it.

It might be fraud; I don't know. But I also wouldn't be quite so quick to call it that. Because it is such a hefty accusation.

I honestly don't know the law on it and wouldn't claim to know what the insurance agreement says. It's possible that as long as he is within the 30 days that it is perfectly legal. You know how the law works - always a loophole

 

[dmmarck]

I agree with you 100%; legality is a whole different debate from the morality of it.

It might be fraud; I don't know. But I also wouldn't be quite so quick to call it that. Because it is such a hefty accusation.

I honestly don't know the law on it and wouldn't claim to know what the insurance agreement says. It's possible that as long as he is within the 30 days that it is perfectly legal. You know how the law works - always a loophole

Yes. Like I've been saying, it depends on the terms of the provider and I'm not familiar with them. I would always err on the side of caution, however, knowing how these types of things (mainly contracts) work.

And yes, each law ordinarily has a loophole. But no one should act presuming so . To that effect, advising the OP either way is dangerous, dangerous territory.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

Wrong to you. Everyone lives by their own moral code.

If Verizon/Asurion wanted to prevent this exact situation, they easily could. They could require buying insurance at time of purchase. They have instead chosen a 30 day window.

Also, insurance companies have the option to check the device BEFORE allowing the insurance to be added. In fact most insurance companies do this. If they dont, it is likely because they decided that it was cheaper to them to allow insurance to be added without inspecting phones for damage ahead of time.

The above is complete garbage. Wrong is not a relative term.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Droid800]

Yes. Like I've been saying, it depends on the terms of the provider and I'm not familiar with them. I would always err on the side of caution, however, knowing how these types of things (mainly contracts) work.

And yes, each law ordinarily has a loophole. But no one should act presuming so . To that effect, advising the OP either way is dangerous, dangerous territory.

The terms do not explicitly state it one way or another. The closest thing they say is that coverage begins after enrollment. (but again, gray area) They do also make a big deal, however, about the 30 day grace period from time of purchase.

As others have stated, if Asurion wanted to prevent this, there are numerous ways to do so. Also keep in mind that, as long as the device isn't lost, Asurion most certainly will get a cut of whatever the device is worth when it gets sent for refurbishment. (something like a broken screen is an easy fix) That is, perhaps, why they do not take those measures to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

 

[Droid800]

The above is complete garbage. Wrong is not a relative term.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Easy there fella. You can disagree without being rude about it.

 

[Hondo_Lane]

This is my last post on this thread...

The people posting here that it's ok, it's expected, it's within the insurance companies defined time frame don't even believe that this is ok.

The reason I say this is each one of them recommended that the OP call in and buy the insurance then wait a day, a week, a billing cycle or something then file the claim.

If these folks truly believed that what they were doing was legal and that the insurance company expects this, then they would simply call in and say: "hey I smashed my phone yesterday and since it's within 30 days of purchase I want to go ahead and buy your insurance... then I will need to file a claim on the smashed phone... can you ship that overnight?"

Instead of the obvious lie that appears to be the official recommended method...


The entitlement "I'm a victim" and "I'll take it anyway I can" mentality exhibited on this thread is a microcosm of what is wrong with out entire country today. Viewpoints such as these are why we are riding a runaway freight train to hell and why America will eventually go belly up like so many other once great societies. Think about it...

 

[JeffDenver]

You realize gorilla glass is all marketing right? It scratches and breaks.. ITS GLASS!!!!!

It isnt invulnerable, but I think it is better than normal glass. I dropped my Droid 1 numerous times and never got a single scratch on the screen. The case is scratched to hell, but the screen is still like new.

 

[JeffDenver]

i blame them for making such and easily breakable device! I spend the money for an expensive, latest and greatest phone, and it breaks from a seemingly harmless fall! All phones should have gorllia glass!

The warranty is what would cover a shoddy product. But unless they are actually advertising the product as being able to withstand a fall without breaking, I doubt the warranty would cover it. Generally, warranties dont cover broken screens IMO, unless you can prove it was due to a manufacturing defect.

Verizon doesnt manufacture the phone. They might service the warranty, but the actual warranty is through whoever made the phone.

What you are describing would be covered by insurance. Asurion would cover stuff like that even if it is completely your fault.

 

[dstrakele]

The terms do not explicitly state it one way or another. The closest thing they say is that coverage begins after enrollment. (but again, gray area) They do also make a big deal, however, about the 30 day grace period from time of purchase.

As others have stated, if Asurion wanted to prevent this, there are numerous ways to do so. Also keep in mind that, as long as the device isn't lost, Asurion most certainly will get a cut of whatever the device is worth when it gets sent for refurbishment. (something like a broken screen is an easy fix) That is, perhaps, why they do not take those measures to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Actually, the Asurion terms ARE explicit - there is no gray area. The Asurion policy states:

A. COVERAGE
In exchange for premium paid when due, we agree to provide the coverage as stated
in this Policy, provided that any covered damage or loss to the Covered Property is
sustained while your coverage is in effect.

For ANY insurance policy, the insurer accepts the risks to pay for or replace merchandise provided you are enrolled in the policy and continue to pay the premiums. No insurance policy covers damage or loss prior to enrollment or outside of being enrolled.

You CAN enroll in the policy for up to 30 days after you purchase your phone, but damage is NOT covered UNTIL you enroll. By filing a valid claim, you are stating the damage occurred after enrollment, while the policy coverage is in effect. If that is not the case, you are committing fraud - no gray area involved.

It is interesting to watch how folks who do know right from wrong can actually justify to themselves that wrong actions are right in their particular case.

 

[mikestorm]

It is interesting to watch how folks who do know right from wrong can actually justify to themselves that wrong actions are right in their particular case.

This. I honestly don't care either way if the OP or anyone else wants to try to put one over on Asurion. More power to to you; no skin off my teeth.

What's bizarre is people trying to rationalize the deceit so it doesn't conflict with their personal moral codes. Nobody likes to think of themselves as dishonest, so they craft flimsy justifications so their self-images can stay intact.

Not. Fooling. Anybody.
Just call a spade a spade, people.

Equally inexplicable are those who are getting indignant over the prospect of putting one over on Asurion. To each his own. Personally, I think the company is a scam in and of itself. The terms are so horrifically lopsided against the customer I'm constantly mystified why anyone would give them a dime.

 

[VDub2174]

i blame them for making such and easily breakable device! I spend the money for an expensive, latest and greatest phone, and it breaks from a seemingly harmless fall! All phones should have gorllia glass!

If you're spending a lot of money on anything you should get insurance if it's offered. The fact that you didn't was your own fault.

 

[dstrakele]

This. I honestly don't care either way if the OP or anyone else wants to try to put one over on Asurion. More power to to you; no skin off my teeth.

Actually, it does affect you. All insurance policy premiums and deductibles (particularly medical insurance) are increased to account for insurance fraud. The price of all merchandise is increased to offset shoplifting. The cost of cable TV is increased to account for those who obtain it fraudulently. Millions of people have lost their jobs, lost their homes, and/or lost a significant chunk of their life savings because people fraudulently overstated their income on mortgage loan applications or loan officers fraudulently increased the applicant's income to allow the loan to be accepted so they could make their commission. Wall Street packaged the fraudulent loans into financial instruments that they fraudulently sold to pension funds and municipalities as 'safe' investments, leading to the recent debt crisis.

It just goes on....and it affects everyone.Once the majority of people believe that fraud is okay or no skin off their teeth, things like this can happen.