I'm looking for a company that will provide me a 2 year exclusionary service contract on my 10 yo MH. My current contract holder (Go Rv Warranty) apparently went out of business late last year, but not before reimbursing me for a new roof (nearly $20K).
I'm not interested in CSP or XtraRide and would appreciate comments from owners of RVs who currently have a service contract they are happy with.
I know the pros and cons of service contracts and don't want any comments regarding that.
a new roof with new sealant, etc. on roof and all vents, hoods, etc. as compared with the 9 year old one. I would prefer it, this is assuming that it was fixed professionally, not just slapped together, but I assume it was sent back to the factory.
No, since it is manufactured in one piece, they are shipping it here. My RV sales/repair is a major repair facility in this area. Huge facility and I've done bidness with them since the day they opened several years ago. Again, since it is a one piece deal, I'm confident that it will be done correctly. I might feel less so if there were a lot of different components that went into the replacement. However, just replacing the roof and vents and then caulking isn't something I think I need to worry about. I may have misunderstood the insurance rep but I think I was told that only Winnebago has (or had?) one piece roofs).
Seems to me, either way, replaced or as is, you have a damaged RV. Would you give the same amount of money for a repaired vehicle as one not ever damaged? That is why Ins. Co. now have to pay "diminished value" on claims.
I hadn't thought of it that way. In my estimation, since I'm getting a new roof that is ONE PIECE, that should be a positive in the eyes of any prospective buyer, especially when comparing it to others of like year and value.
I tend to agree that while it may not increase the value of the MH, it should make it more attractive to a prospective buyer because he will now have a brand new roof just like the one's that come our of the factory on new RVs.
I would think no. Buyer expects roof to be in good shape normally. If it's bad, I would not buy it. You may have to repair it just to make it sellable. How bad is it? 18K??? Sounds like a lot!
As I mentioned in my first paragraph, it's the ENTIRE roof. I suppose that if it were not one piece, it would've been less expensive.
A couple weeks ago, we went on a trip from central Texas to SW CO when we got in a terrible wind storm south of Lubbock (go figure!). Somehow the wind got underneath a seam of our roof (a one piece solid gelcoat roof), lifted part of it and caused three tears in it. Since it couldn't be repaired, insurance is paying to replace the entire roof.
The original roof was nine years old and had long ago turned chalky, although I washed and waxed it on a regular basis. Since the roof is one piece, everything will be replaced including the vents and wiring underneath it. I'm having two additional feeds installed to the front and back TVs so that we will be able to watch DirecTv and record other channels at the same time.
My questions is whether or not having a brand new roof installed will increase the value of the MH (it will cost a minimum of $18K to replace it) or will the NADA value remain the same as a comparable year MH? I'm getting ready to sell it and need to know what to ask for it.
I recently incurred severe wind damage to the rook of my 2004 Itasca Suncruiser while on the road. To make a longer story shorter, I was hit by a rogue wind blast to the passenger side of the MH and it ripped the rear side of the roof for a distance of about 25 linear feet and also three major rips toward the center of the roof, ranging from about 1' to 3'.
The insurance company decided that it appeared that the damage was initiated by an impact of something which then started the tearing process. As a result, they are replacing my roof under the collision part of my insurance.
What is the difference to me whether they replace it under collision or comprehensive? I'm almost positive that there was no impact, just that the wind found a weak spot and damage occurred from there. Since they are replacing the entire roof, for which I'm grateful, does it make any difference under which part of the insurance pays for it? Would one have more of a negative impact on my future insurance rates than the other?
I bought six new Michelins (DOT 2012) last year and for some reason I keep losing a considerable amount of air (25-50 psi per week when sitting) from my inside rear dually tires. I suspect that it may be because the valve extenders (rubber) they installed were made for Goodyear tires, however they were all that was available at the time. I've made arrangements to have them inspected and replaced if necessary but was wondering if there could be anything else. I think it's pretty unlikely that both inside tires could've developed a leak simultaneously from a nail, etc., but stranger things have happened. Any thoughts?