Photo of damaged tire not enough to get customer what he wants
»Play Video
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) — After two tires were destroyed, a Bakersfield man said he wants the manufacturer to reimburse him. But, he said Hankook Tires will only refund his money for the tire that blew out, not the second one.
The problem is Ronald Marvin left the second tire behind, and he only has a photo to show the damage.
In August, Marvin was towing an SUV behind his motor home. On Highway 58 near Boron, a trucker motioned that the front driver-side tire on the SUV was badly damaged. Marvin pulled over and found that tire simply shredded. And, the front passenger-side tire was also damaged.
"By the time I got it pulled over, all the tension and the stress on the tire from moving back and forth just destroyed the tread," Marvin said. "It was so bad, that it needed to be replaced."
He limped the motor home and SUV into Kramer Junction, and bought two tires. The wheel on one was also badly damaged, so he used the wheel from the spare, and called ahead to St. George, Utah to get a replacement for that.
Marvin said he had only so much room to bring back the damaged tires.
"I had the spare tire that I had to put in the back, plus this (blown-out tire), and I decided to photograph the bad tire and left it," Marvin said. He kept a photograph of the damaged tire to show the company.
Once he was back home, Marvin went to the Sears Auto Center to get reimbursed for the two destroyed tires. "I had road hazard tire insurance from Sears," Marvin says. "But they and Hankook America refused to honor it, as I did not have the other tire."
Marvin says he contacted Hankook USA spokesmen by email. On Sept. 14 he got an email reply.
"Hi Ronald: If the tire that had a blow out was the result of a road hazard and falls within the first 2/32 of tread, we would be able to warranty that tire," it reads. "Unfortunately, we cannot warranty a tire that you do not have."
Marvin is unhappy with that response. He thinks the photo of the badly damaged tire should be proof enough. Marvin has documents showing he bought four tires on Oct. 14, 2011. That makes the damaged tires about 10 months old at that time, and Marvin said they had 3,282 miles on them.
He said the company had agreed to reimburse him for the tire he brought back. But that leaves the second tire, and the cost of a new wheel -- which he said the company had declined to cover. Marvin figures he's out about $400.
On Monday, Eyewitness News contacted Hankook USA by phone and email. A spokesman said he'd do more research into what the company has done about this case so far.
Marvin thinks there was clearly a problem with the tires from Hankook. At the time of the blow-out, "None of the other tires were damaged," Marvin said. "And I didn't see anything on the road, I didn't hit anything with the motor home."
Marvin is convinced the company should make good on all the damage from this tire blow-out, even if he only has a photo to demonstrate the second damaged tire.
"I'd like to get reimbursed for the rim and get my tires replaced," Marvin said. "I just figured Hankook, just for good customer relations, would say, 'Alright, we'll replace it.'"
The problem is Ronald Marvin left the second tire behind, and he only has a photo to show the damage.
In August, Marvin was towing an SUV behind his motor home. On Highway 58 near Boron, a trucker motioned that the front driver-side tire on the SUV was badly damaged. Marvin pulled over and found that tire simply shredded. And, the front passenger-side tire was also damaged.
"By the time I got it pulled over, all the tension and the stress on the tire from moving back and forth just destroyed the tread," Marvin said. "It was so bad, that it needed to be replaced."
He limped the motor home and SUV into Kramer Junction, and bought two tires. The wheel on one was also badly damaged, so he used the wheel from the spare, and called ahead to St. George, Utah to get a replacement for that.
Marvin said he had only so much room to bring back the damaged tires.
"I had the spare tire that I had to put in the back, plus this (blown-out tire), and I decided to photograph the bad tire and left it," Marvin said. He kept a photograph of the damaged tire to show the company.
Once he was back home, Marvin went to the Sears Auto Center to get reimbursed for the two destroyed tires. "I had road hazard tire insurance from Sears," Marvin says. "But they and Hankook America refused to honor it, as I did not have the other tire."
Marvin says he contacted Hankook USA spokesmen by email. On Sept. 14 he got an email reply.
"Hi Ronald: If the tire that had a blow out was the result of a road hazard and falls within the first 2/32 of tread, we would be able to warranty that tire," it reads. "Unfortunately, we cannot warranty a tire that you do not have."
Marvin is unhappy with that response. He thinks the photo of the badly damaged tire should be proof enough. Marvin has documents showing he bought four tires on Oct. 14, 2011. That makes the damaged tires about 10 months old at that time, and Marvin said they had 3,282 miles on them.
He said the company had agreed to reimburse him for the tire he brought back. But that leaves the second tire, and the cost of a new wheel -- which he said the company had declined to cover. Marvin figures he's out about $400.
On Monday, Eyewitness News contacted Hankook USA by phone and email. A spokesman said he'd do more research into what the company has done about this case so far.
Marvin thinks there was clearly a problem with the tires from Hankook. At the time of the blow-out, "None of the other tires were damaged," Marvin said. "And I didn't see anything on the road, I didn't hit anything with the motor home."
Marvin is convinced the company should make good on all the damage from this tire blow-out, even if he only has a photo to demonstrate the second damaged tire.
"I'd like to get reimbursed for the rim and get my tires replaced," Marvin said. "I just figured Hankook, just for good customer relations, would say, 'Alright, we'll replace it.'"
This is so wrong on so many levels. First, let me say that I am retired also and was never an employee of any tire company, nor did I represent, consult with, or do anything more with tire companies than buy their tires all my life.
Â
First:Â If there was no indication of trouble with the towed vehicle, why was the stop so treacherous?
Â
Second:Â The picture of the damaged, but not blown out tire, shows a LOT of wear on the outside of the tire; much more than 3812 miles worth and opposite of where the tire would have worn after the towed vehicle tilted toward the blowout.
Â
Third: The rear tires are supposedly good, and may or may not have 3812 miles on them per the odometer. How many towed miles are on all the tires that do not show on the odometer?
Â
Fourth: Anyone reading a warranty from any tire company will realize that a tire must be presented to the manufacturer or their representative for inspection before any compensation will be considered. You can't tell me that there was no room in the RV, on top of the RV, or in the towed vehicle for one additional tire. If there was NO room in the towed vehicle, perhaps it was overloaded.
Â
Hankook did more than would be normally expected (full credit for the tire presented). This was not good enough for the complainant, so he went about trying to coerce(read blackmail) the company through defaming them in a public medium. Were it my company, I would look to the station, the reporter, and the complainant for damages.
Â
Is the Kia a front wheel drive car? Does it have an automatic transmission? Was the transmission left in gear or slipped into gear? The damage depicted could easily have been caused by excessive loading on the wheels trying to turn the drive line and motor with the front wheels. The tires would have worn, overheated, and one of them would have blown out first. Then the tire that did not blow out would wear on the inside, still trying to turn the drive line.........
Â
Is the complainant now going to go to Kia to complain about the engine and/or transmission starting to fail? If he doesn't get satisfaction, will he then find someone to do a news story defaming Kia?
Â
He should be happy that somebody at Hankook felt sorry for him and gave him the cost of the one tire.
 @OlderguyI have never had a problem with the KIA (and I have another KIA with which I am completely satisfied) and it is an optional 4 wheel drive with a drive line disconnect, but the odometer continues to keep track of the mileage.  I have towed this vehicle with other tires to Death Valley, Point Reyes, Morro Bay and elsewhere and have never had a problem prior to the Hankooks.  I had road hazard insurance and was only asking for a replacement tire under the insurance  coverage.  I never received any road hazard insurance specifics from Sears, it only listed the insurance on the receipt.  I was just beginning a 1600+ mile trip and there were 3 of us traveling together and with the spare tire and the blown tire, there was no room left for the additional tire, that's why I took multiple photos of the other tire.  The damage to the other tire was caused by the additional torque placed upon the remaining front tire when the other one blew out at 55 miles per hour and the damage was on the inside where the additional pressure would have occurred .  I had the tires rotated and realigned a short time before the trip and there were no problems with the tires at that time.  As I said in a previous response, I have been driving for over 50 years and have never before had a tire blow out and Hankook has already had a recall on their 17" version of the Dynapro tire due to a blow out problem.Â
Some may have sympathy for this guy but not me. A photo of a bad tire and he expects a refund? The motor home and the SUV were packed full where the tire couldn't be taken? Typical motor home owner, over $100,000 invested and buy a cheap tire expecting them to perform like a first line tire.
 @Paranah Sorry guys, I don't have a lot of money and the motorhome was purchased used and was not  expensive.  I'm retired and on a fixed income and when I replaced my previous tires, these were recommended in the price category I could afford at the time. I have a Korean tow vehicle and have another Korean car which my wife and I love and my wife's car originally came with Korean manufactured tires which were fine and with which we never had a problem.  Remember, not to make assumptions without full information.
Hankook.......you get what you pay for those tires are junk to begin with, minimally meet DOT standards to be allowed to be sold in the US. And whine, awahaa wahhh I have a motor home and and SUV I have lots of money but I want free tires *sniff*
 @ruffy Sorry guys, I don't have a lot of money and the motorhome was purchased used (2001) model  and was not  expensive.  I'm retired and on a fixed income and when I replaced my previous tires, these were recommended by Sears in the price category I could afford at the time. I have a Korean tow vehicle and have another Korean car which my wife and I love and my wife's car originally came with Korean manufactured tires which were fine and with which we never had a problem.  Remember, not to make assumptions without full information.  You know what happens when you assume.
 @Teach  @ruffyÂ
 @Teach Rather unfortunate situation.  The policy is clear.  It's obvious you want to cheat out a business without following the policy.  No sympathy here buddy.  Life goes on.Â
 @Ellie Grace  @Teach I honestly am not trying to cheat a business.  If I had not been towing the vehicle and had been on the road there could have easily been major damage and potential fatalities,  These tires had only 3800 miles on them.  I have been driving for over 50 years and have never had a blow out before, nor have I ever gone after a company.  The tires were only about $150 each, it's not about the money, it's is about the principle.
I pray that you never have a blow out due to a poor tire. Â By the way, after this happened it came to my attention that Hankook has had a recall on their 17" Dynapro tires due to a blow out problem.