Claim Detail

dealer_or_external • Apr 18, 2024, 4:42 PM

LOOKING AT 1.5 LABOR

processor • Apr 18, 2024, 4:55 PM

Thank you Bonnie!

processor • Apr 18, 2024, 5:07 PM

@Bonnie K Can you clarify the correction to have this submitted for PA.

processor • Apr 24, 2024, 8:45 AM

@Bonnie K can we have a correction added to get this submitted for PA?

dealer_or_external • Apr 24, 2024, 12:27 PM

@Crystal K Customer ended up taking this unit directly to Grand Design.

processor • Apr 24, 2024, 1:44 PM

@Crystal K @Alix M you will can move this one to the write off folder as it doesn't appear as though anything will be claimed.

dealer_or_external • May 3, 2024, 3:55 PM

Not sure how much time since GD has already fixed this once.

processor • May 3, 2024, 4:01 PM

Are you able to provide an idea as to what it would take to fix? We can try and see what they say once I know how much to request.

dealer_or_external • May 7, 2024, 4:02 PM

@Alix M The customer ended up going back to Grand Design directly to have repaired. This claim is no longer needed. Thank you for your assistance!

processor • May 7, 2024, 4:29 PM

Thank you!

processor • Oct 20, 2026, 4:37 PM

TESTING AND LEARNING — Testing/Learning claim: RO 10201. Why unpaid/written off: Heidi's April 24, 2024 sidebar note directs write-off because nothing appeared likely to be claimed. The March 18 RO records gaps after customer-reported Grand Design frame reinforcement, but shows 0.00 labor hours, no parts and a $0 total. This packet documents a complaint closed without a developed billable claim; it does not document a manufacturer denial. The nine photos show gaps/seams and surrounding components, but do not establish cause or covered repair work. What could have been done differently: link this complaint to the original GD factory repair case; record measured gaps and a technician diagnosis; obtain GD's written decision on responsibility and an authorized repair scope; then document actual labor, parts and correction and track any resulting claim through payment. If no repair was needed or the factory handled it directly, record that specific outcome before closure. Lesson: photos and a complaint need a documented diagnostic and authorization decision to become a payable claim. The supplied record does not prove those steps occurred or that payment would have been approved. Any present recovery review needs the original factory case and evidence of actual unpaid work; no positive recovery amount is established here. @Chris B @Heidi H @Tricia H

processor • Oct 20, 2026, 4:42 PM

TESTING AND LEARNING — Testing/Learning claim: RO 10201 (1). This folder contains the same RO/VIN and nine photos as 10201, so it is not a second repair balance. Its separate sidebar adds an important handoff: on May 3, 2024, Alix asked what it would take to fix so she would know how much to request. The May 7 thank-you does not reveal what estimate or decision followed; the parent comment is deleted. Why unpaid/written off: the owner confirms that outcome, but this retained packet does not establish a manufacturer denial. The RO still has zero labor, no parts and a $0 total, with no documented diagnosis or priced repair. What could have been done differently: retain the technician diagnosis, measured gaps and itemized repair estimate with the original Grand Design frame-repair case; document the response to Alix and GD's written authorization or refusal; then track any authorized work and claim through payment. Link both packets by RO/VIN so the estimate-to-authorization handoff remains visible. We cannot conclude the estimate was never supplied from a missing parent comment, or claim a recoverable amount without evidence of actual unpaid work. @Chris B @Heidi H @Tricia H