- 01-18-2013, 08:10 PM #1
So first of all, I dropped my phone yesterday. Everything is completely flawless on the phone EXCEPT for the top left corner which has a couple small dents and some scuff marks. This was early in the morning. I proceeded throughout the whole day without any problems with the phone.
So today, I wake up and find that the accelerometer isn't working. Nothing will go into landscape mode, and Diagnostic Tool shows the accel. is stuck all the way to the left and the gyroscope is going insane, and I've tried everything from soft reboot to hard factory reset with no results. So of course I want to have it repaired or replaced. I call AT&T and tell them about my problem, but of course the warranty gets voided because I dropped my damn device and there's visible proof of it on the phone itself.
Before I send it off to Nokia I'm wondering if they're just going to tell me the same thing, since their warranty conditions look similar to AT&T's (A device that has failed due to physical damage (severe damage to casing, LCD, and product separating into multiple pieces are examples) or unauthorized repair is ineligible for warranty service.) I don't want to waste my time sending it to them otherwise.
Last edited by Vinnio; 01-18-2013 at 09:26 PM.
- 01-18-2013, 11:44 PM #2
I used to work for one of the largest insurance companies in the world, working with extended warranties on computers and accessories, and home warranties. Every single one of our contracts excluded anything caused by misuse or abuse. The evidence of a drop, like what you describe, no matter how small, is plenty of evidence of misuse or abuse, so we would have declined a claim like yours in a heartbeat.
The malfunction that you describe, the gyro "going insane" and the accellerometer being stuck in one position are consistent with damage that could be caused by a drop. There is no doubt in my mind that the drop is what caused your problem, and if I were the one reviewing your claim, it would be declined.
In my position, I spoke with all of the angry customers - I wasn't the one you talked to when you were calling in a claim. I had the authority to reverse a declination if the circumstances warranted it. It was my job to make people happy, while working within the terms and conditions of the contract. If a claim was declined that should not have been declined, it was my place to go ahead and pay the claim and make the repair.
Given the condition that you describe your phone to be in, I would not reverse the claim.
Don't be surprised if they decline the claim. Given that Nokia has shown excellent customer service, you may be surprised and they may replace the phone, just for the customer good-will that it would create. But you should not be surprised if they don't.
- 01-19-2013, 12:45 AM #3
No moving parts besides a rumble motor and glass on one side. Phones should be heavier and sturdier.
OP is screwed by what it sounds like.
- 01-19-2013, 11:14 AM #4
accellerometer sensors probably move on a scale smaller than what we'd even notice if we were looking at one, but they move. And if you jar it hard enough, it's going to do what the OP's is doing.
If you were calling me for a replacement, I'd tell you the claim was declined for misuse/abuse. The phone was made to do many things, but it was not made to drop. That is not a function that it was built to perform. Yes, Nokia phones are generally pretty robust, and I've read some amazing stories of what they've withstood with minimal damage, but that does not mean it was designed to drop. Dropping a phone is abuse.
Reminds me of a guy that one of my coworkers dealt with once. Called in for a problem with his monitor. My coworker wanted to troubleshoot it with him, as we always did. Troubleshooting to determine whether we needed to send a replacement monitor, or a technician with a video card. My coworker asked the guy to plug it in, and the guy said, "No way I'm plugging that thing in!" My coworker asked why. He said, "Because there's water in it and smoke coming out of it!" My coworker asked how the water got in. "Well there's a plant hanging up above the computer, and we spilled some into the monitor when watering the plant. Right now it's out on the back porch in the rain." My coworker told the guy it was not going to be covered, for misuse/abuse, and the guy argued with him, "That's not misuse and abuse!" My coworker said, "the monitor wasn't designed to be having water poured into it. You abused it by putting water in it." No, we did not replace the monitor. This is the same thing. The phone wasn't made to be dropped, and while many do withstand drops without damage, that still doesn't mean that's what it was designed for.
Read the contract. That's an important lesson I learned working at an insurance company.
- 01-19-2013, 12:32 PM #5
Also, a lot of insurance companies will NOT insure a product if it has previously been damaged and repaired. So in your case, you're going to have to buy a new phone and get insurance on it before you do anything that would void the warranty. I'm afraid it's that simple. I don't recommend getting it repaired as it will cost a good chunk of money and is very likely to just fail again, and as I said, chances are you won't be able to get it insured so the pain is lessened should it go pear shaped again.
- 01-19-2013, 01:22 PM #6
I know the law, my point was that going to the letter of your insurance and the law does not win you long term customers when your product is easily and/or often purchased.
There are many rugged phones. Just wish some were Windows Smart.
On another note, just to debate. I wonder how the claim would change if he had an official or sponsored super case, like an Otter Box.
- 01-19-2013, 01:34 PM #7
- 01-19-2013, 02:05 PM #8
- 01-19-2013, 02:20 PM #10
Incidentally, I do keep my Lumia 900 in an Otterbox case.
Last week I was showing my mother a funny YouTube video. She got overly excited while watching the video and knocked my device out of my hand. It hit the floor but was not damaged.
I told her she'd be buying me a 920 if she broke my 900.
- 01-19-2013, 06:08 PM #12
As far as whether the phone has as case on it or not, that's not relevant. The OEM didn't make the case, and whether dropped in a case or out of a case, it's still abuse. What matters is proving abuse. That's on whomever is backing the warranty. If there's physical damage, it's easy to prove abuse. If there isn't, how can they? So yes, having a case on will help. Not because having a case strengthens the warranty, but because it makes it more difficult for the warranty's backer to prove abuse. None of the case makers, btw, will cover damage to the phone in any case.
As for customers.... I worked for the sixth largest insurance company in the world. I'm quite sure that we knew what we were doing otherwise we wouldn't have been that big. I'm also sure we didn't get that big by giving a replacement to everyone who misused or abused their covered goods. And we didn't do anything any differently than any other insurance company does every day. I've also been in the position where I got insurance agents fired who tried to defraud us. Example, home warranty. Optional coverage item, for instance, air conditioning. Customer calls us and says the AC is out, we look it up, and they didn't purchase that coverage. Declined. Agent calls up our agent hotline and throws a fit, saying if we don't cover this he's going to lose an $x,000 customer. Sorry, they didn't buy the coverage. He says, "Yes they did." Our agent hotline agents tell him to fax a copy of the application. At the same time, when they tell me this, I call up our records department and ask Donna to send me a copy of the image. Yes, we scanned every application that came in. I get the copy of the image and the fax from the agent. They're different. The agent doctored it. I call up the VP of that division, tell him about it, email him copies, and I never hear from the agent again.
Here's a tip for you all: Insurance agents must cover what they tell you is covered. Even if it really shouldn't be - if they told you it's covered, it's covered. It's their job to know. For that reason, they have what's called Errors and Omissions Insurance. If they goof, they file an E&O claim. But they don't want to do that because they have to pay a deductible. Instead, they sometimes try to defraud the very company that they work for, or represent. Not cool. Now I did have the authority to bend the rules on occasion, if the circumstances warranted it, but that was not a license to give the company away. That authority had to be used responsibly.
Anyway, perhaps you're right. Perhaps that one person who gets his claim declined won't be happy, and will go somewhere else. That somewhere else has the same rules and goals - to make money - not to give it all away. That person who is going to be upset because his claim for his abused covered item isn't covered won't be made happy somewhere else. But the hundreds to thousands who are covered for their claim, for each one who isn't, are going to be happy, and their collective voices are going to be louder than the one.
Given all this, I realize that there is a difference between the insurance industry and the manufacturing industry (I've worked in both). I also know that Nokia has shown excellent customer good-will, which is why nowhere have I said that they won't replace it. There is a chance they will. I'm just saying that no one should be surprised if the answer is no, when there is physical damage to the device. But to say that a company is wrong to enforce the terms and conditions of a contract, which is what that warranty is, is an inaccurate statement.
So let's hope they do replace it. But again, don't be surprised or upset with them if they don't. They didn't damage the phone.
- 01-19-2013, 08:33 PM #14
Hopmedic I would have to see cases about...cases. That is the point of a case and many case makers make claims that they would protect damage. Like water damage and physical damage. Of course they have tons of fine print bit two statements made can't directly contradict. Another although, laws always favor the business.
- 01-20-2013, 12:59 PM #15
I have to say that I dropped my phone the first day. This 920's are slippery little buggers!
It scuffed the back of the phone... thankfully it all appears to work ok.
I decided that with this phone I would see if it would survive without all the covers and protectors. Yes, that sounds stupid but I'll give it a go. I guess it will cost in replacement parts/replacement phones worst case.
On the insurance front, Consumer Reports says it is not worth it. And even people on the internet who said it was have later said it wasn't after filing a claim. Why? Because you typically still pay a $100-200 deductible when you file a claim and as the parts can be got online for less than that and a manual repairs made for the most common problem - a broken screen. So you're basically wasting money having insurance in that it costs $300 for the first repair (deductible + cost for insurance) and you can do it for cheaper online. Or worst case, picking up a replacement phone from ebay.
- By TaliZorah in forum The "Off Topic" LoungeReplies: 10Last Post: 11-20-2012, 09:53 AM
- By Thuoudo in forum Nokia Lumia 900Replies: 2Last Post: 05-16-2012, 07:51 PM
- By dan094 in forum Windows Phone 7Replies: 9Last Post: 10-08-2011, 10:00 AM