Yea, i don't know, but it seems the fact that they are paying 45% shows Cat is admitting fault, but nowhere in the extended srvce contract does it say they will only pay 45%. Seems to me it would be a good case, Cat should pay all or none. There have been many cases settled in favor of the warranty customer where the OEM didn't pay what they should. Even dealers can be liable, as if they were saying, sorry, we won't work on your truck under warranty, this is not right and maybe worth triple damages. I have seen it before in the car busniness where a judge seriously slapped the dealer and OEM w/ triple on a case where they did not want to do warranty work on a vehicle, or even just postponed the repair, because it was sold new by their competitor in Cali some years back. I say go for it!!
retidepxe
