Oliver Reward Program

[Katjo]

@MDuncan Ok, thank you for taking the time to clarify.

We love showing our Ollie, we’ve never been referred by Oliver but have shown it too many times to count to strangers at every place we take it!  
We’ve even had a few message through FB that saw we have an Oliver that have come to our home and toured it, not referred by Oliver. 

[Bill and Nancy]

We have reviewed this program but defer to the information that @Rivernerdprovided. We have been in retail far to long and had to defend ourselves against a franchise in the past. This language is all too familiar. We wouldn’t move forward until the language is changed. If it is changed we would look forward to showing our Ollie and would be happy to be part of the program.

[Rivernerd]

7 hours ago, Ollie-Haus said:

Regarding the so called liabilities, we all invite strangers into our campers, cars, homes and lives in general and don't think twice about the liabilities, without a reward program.

Understood.

But, I, for one, have never agreed in writing to "fully defend and indemnify" the manufacturer of the camper, the company that made my car, or the builder of my home, if someone I invite to join me inside it decides to sue them for negligence.

In my view, it is unfair for Oliver to include such an agreement in its non-negotiable Terms and Conditions.

[Mainiac]

10 hours ago, Katjo said:

I’ve contemplated starting a new Oliver group where comments will not be muzzled and it will not have trigger happy fingers on the kick people out button if the persons comment/opinion doesn’t agree with theirs. 
I would name the group Oliver Travel Owners New Generation. 
Let me know if there is interest and I will open a new FB group. 

I got "warned" for talking censorship, an excuse that FB removed post and 'admin' came in and restored it. Then proceeded to close any further discussion. Let the New Generation roar!

The devil's advocate is alive and well.

Matt's explanation was well done. Maybe a copy of the "we hold you harmless" form should be published here...

[marsharini]

7 hours ago, Mainiac said:

I got "warned" for talking censorship, an excuse that FB removed post and 'admin' came in and restored it. Then proceeded to close any further discussion. Let the New Generation roar!

The devil's advocate is alive and well.

Matt's explanation was well done. Maybe a copy of the "we hold you harmless" form should be published here...

Back in our Casita days there was a Facebook group that ruled the same way.  I think some of the same people are now Oliver owners and moderating the Oliver page. They need to lighten up.

[Rivernerd]

14 hours ago, Mainiac said:

Maybe a copy of the "we hold you harmless" form should be published here...

Here is a link to the "Review and Sign" page that Matt sent me yesterday.

https://olivertt.eversign.com/document/6de0db0844e943999cdaeb43606ccc47-bfec2ff9138843c0bc12e48d1a8391ba/sign

[John and Debbie]

37 minutes ago, Rivernerd said:

Here is a link to the "Review and Sign" page that Matt sent me yesterday.

https://olivertt.eversign.com/document/6de0db0844e943999cdaeb43606ccc47-bfec2ff9138843c0bc12e48d1a8391ba/sign

It looks to me that it's thorough and protects both OTT and the owner showing their trailer.  I am not an attorney, but it seems to cross every "t" and dot every "i".

John

[Mainiac]

All things discussed...both pro and con... have made me decided to sign. Thank you Matt Duncan for your patience and through explanations. I am sure that time might "tweak" the wording from time to time, but even the Constitution took amendments from time to time.

And I wasn't even threatened by an 'admin' or FB...

[topgun2]

1 hour ago, Rivernerd said:

Here is a link to the "Review and Sign" page that Matt sent me yesterday.

Are we all talking about the same form here?

I agree with JW  - with the agreement that is referenced by Rivernerd above it seems to me that both Oliver and the Trailer Owner are "protected", but, it is the Prospective buyer that is the one who bears the weight of legal expenses, etc.  Perhaps, if I was a prospective buyer I might have a bit of concern about signing.

Bill

[John and Debbie]

51 minutes ago, topgun2 said:

Are we all talking about the same form here?

I agree with JW  - with the agreement that is referenced by Rivernerd above it seems to me that both Oliver and the Trailer Owner are "protected", but, it is the Prospective buyer that is the one who bears the weight of legal expenses, etc.  Perhaps, if I was a prospective buyer I might have a bit of concern about signing.

Bill

True that too, Bill.  But then think of all the things we sign up for everywhere that have pages of legal statements that very few of us read.  When you sign up for phone service even!  You probably missed the part where if someone from Mars lands and takes your phone that you won't hold the phone company liable for loss of use.

John

[Boudicca908]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:49 AM, CnC said:

Well, we show our Ollie frequently to just about anybody who asks to see it - we're proud of our choice of a well-made TT.  That being said, we're not interested in Oliver's new rewards program.

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. I just showed my Oliver, for the first time (and it was prior to receiving that new notice that I thought was maybe a scam). I'm not interested in another credit card, either; it's too much hassle. I'm not showing it to gain anything personally, anyway, but I'll say this -- the whole conversation here about liability as a private owner vs as a paid professional really makes me take a step back. Entirely not worth it. 

One other thought, though -- Oliver might also be getting some kind of negative feedback/pressure by their own insurers about this program, and that might be what prompted the changes. 

[Boudicca908]

On 1/10/2023 at 11:29 AM, MDuncan said:

If anyone has questions, please don't hesitate to message me.

Can you pin this to the topic (top or bottom)? I totally missed your explanation before my last comment.

[Steph and Dud B]

There are many documents and agreements that look iron-clad but they're not. Many companies force employees to sign strict and detailed non-compete agreements. But many states limit the companies' ability to actually enforce those agreements. The documents' main value is to scare the employee away from going to a competitor.

A signed paper is only as good as a judge says it is if it goes to court. The same could be true here. No matter how well crafted OTT's hold harmless agreement might be, a judge could rule it unenforceable in certain situations. That's why @Rivernerd's suggestion to modify the indemnity clause to protect owners financially in that situation sounds wise to me. 

[Rivernerd]

22 hours ago, Steph and Dud B said:

No matter how well crafted OTT's hold harmless agreement might be, a judge could rule it unenforceable in certain situations.

35 years of litigation practice confirmed the truth of this observation to me.  Yet, the odds are very low (but not zero) that the tightly-drafted Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Hold Harmless agreement being required by Oliver as part of the new rewards program will not be enforced.  I appreciate Oliver investing the $$$$ to get it drafted, and insisting that it be executed before a trailer is shown.

Of greater financial concern to me than the possibility that the agreement will not ultimately be enforced, is that many thousands of $$$$ must be spent on attorneys to defend the claim before a decision regarding the effect of that document is ever made.  In this country, defendants in such cases get to pay their own attorneys, "win, lose or draw."  Much expensive motion practice by defense counsel is required before the enforceability of that document is even presented to the judge for decision.  That is one reason we have an umbrella insurance policy, in case our regular homeowners' policy, and our vehicle insurance on the trailer, don't cover such a claim.  We hope our insurance carrier will get to pay defense counsel to try to get the claim dismissed, not us.

That is why the indemnity provision in Oliver's Terms and Conditions is so critical.  As presently drafted, not only must an unlucky Oliver owner pay its own attorney(s) to defend the claim, but Oliver's attorneys as well!  As I have noted in earlier posts, I would only be willing to sign up for the program if Oliver deleted that Indemnification language, and substituted in its place a covenant to fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless Oliver owners who get sued for injuries incurred when showing a trailer.  Then, an unlucky owner who gets sued should tender defense of any such claim to Oliver, and Oliver (or more likely its insurers) would be obligated to retain and pay defense counsel.  It would then be Oliver's obligation to get the Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Hold Harmless agreement enforced, and the claim dismissed.  No risk of financial ruin for the unlucky owner.

In my view, Oliver should assume this legal obligation, and simply pay the additional insurance premiums to cover that contractual commitment.  Given the very small odds of such a claim even being made, the additional premiums for such coverage should be relatively low.  I believe the profit from the increased sales, and the goodwill with its existing owners, would more than cover the cost of the additional premiums.

But that is a business decision only Oliver can make.  Unless and until they do what I believe to be the "right thing," this retired lawyer will not be opting in to the Rewards Program.

[Katjo]

@Rivernerd  Thank you for your expert insight. I won’t pretend to understand all the legal jargon so it’s nice to get some feedback from someone with years of experience. 

[AlbertNTerri]

4 hours ago, Rivernerd said:

35 years of litigation practice confirmed the truth of this observation to me.  Yet, the odds are very low (but not zero) that the tightly-drafted Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Hold Harmless agreement being required by Oliver as part of the new rewards program will not be enforced.  I appreciate Oliver investing the $$$$ to get it drafted, and insisting that it be executed before a trailer is shown.

Of greater financial concern to me than the possibility that the agreement will not ultimately be enforced, is that many thousands of $$$$ must be spent on  attorneys to defend the claim before a decision regarding the effect of that document is ever made.  In this country, defendants in such cases get to pay their own attorneys, "win, lose or draw."  Much expensive motion practice by defense counsel is required before the enforceability of that document is even presented to the judge for decision.  That is one reason we have an umbrella insurance policy, in case our regular homeowners' policy, and our vehicle insurance on the trailer, don't cover such a claim.  We hope our insurance carrier will get to pay defense counsel to try to get the claim dismissed, not us.

That is why the indemnity provision in Oliver's Terms and Conditions is so critical.  As presently drafted, not only must an unlucky Oliver owner pay its own attorney(s) to defend the claim, but Oliver's attorneys as well!  As I have noted in earlier posts, I would only be willing to sign up for the program if Oliver deleted that Indemnification language, and substituted in its place a covenant to fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless Oliver owners who get sued for injuries incurred when showing a trailer.  Then, an unlucky owner who gets sued should tender defense of any such claim to Oliver, and Oliver (or more likely its insurers) would be obligated to retain and pay defense counsel.  It would then be Oliver's obligation to get the Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Hold Harmless agreement enforced, and the claim dismissed.  No risk of financial ruin for the unlucky owner.

In my view, Oliver should assume this legal obligation, and simply pay the additional insurance premiums to cover that contractual commitment.  Given the very small odds of such a claim even being made, the additional premiums for such coverage should be relatively low.  I believe the profit from the increased sales, and the goodwill with its existing owners, would more than cover the cost of the additional premiums.

But that is a business decision only Oliver can make.  Unless and until they do what I believe to be the "right thing," this retired lawyer will not be opting in to the Rewards Program.

I'm interested in hearing what the OTT lawyers who drafted the agreement being discussed will be willing to change without giving some pushback to Oliver. Given Oliver's history of fantastic customer service and the feedback we are getting from them,  I believe that this is a case of the lawyers producing a document that fully protects their client (OTT) without regard to what it lays on us the Oliver Owners. It is my hope that in the spirit of their historical great care and service of the owners, that the people at Oliver who are in direct contact with the drafting attorneys will make known to them their (OTT's) desire to not place an undue burden, real or perceived on those of us who so willingly open our personal space and hearts to those who have interest in our trailers. Assuming that's the case then the lawyers involved should have no problem re-writing the questionable portions and remove any verbiage that could result in the undue liability suggested by Rivernerd.

 

(Thanks Rivernerd for the input)

[topgun2]

11 hours ago, Rivernerd said:

As presently drafted, not only must an unlucky Oliver owner pay its own attorney(s) to defend the claim, but Oliver's attorneys as well! 

I repeat what I said above - Are we talking about the same form here - the form that Rivernerd linked to?

I still don't see in that form where the Oliver owner has to pay Oliver's legal expenses.

Bill

[Rivernerd]

1 hour ago, topgun2 said:

I still don't see in that form where the Oliver owner has to pay Oliver's legal expenses.

That language is not in the Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Hold Harmless Agreement.  The Indemnification language is found in Oliver's Terms and Conditions applicable to the Rewards Program.   If you sign up for the Rewards Program, you are bound by Oliver's published Terms and Conditions.

[Rivernerd]

13 hours ago, Rivernerd said:

That is why the indemnity provision in Oliver's Terms and Conditions is so critical.  As presently drafted, not only must an unlucky Oliver owner pay its own attorney(s) to defend the claim, but Oliver's attorneys as well! 

To avoid any further confusion, I have included in the quote above the sentence preceding the sentence you quoted in your post.  The "indemnity provision in Oliver's Terms and Conditions" is the source of my concern, not any language found in the Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Hold Harmless document.

[topgun2]

14 minutes ago, Rivernerd said:

That language is not in the Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Hold Harmless Agreement.  The Indemnification language is found in Oliver's Terms and Conditions applicable to the Rewards Program.   If you sign up for the Rewards Program, you are bound by Oliver's published Terms and Conditions.

OK - thanks.  I just wanted to make sure that everyone is/was on the same page and not confusing one thing with another.

So, it appears that assuming that a prospective buyer actually signs the form you referenced, a current owner who choses to show his Oliver to that buyer is, at least, somewhat more "protected" than they used to be.

On the other hand, joining the rewards program could make even that questionable.

It seems to me that the appropriate course of action at this point would be to wait to see what (if anything) Oliver comes back with in regards to the rewards program.

Bill 

[Rivernerd]

3 minutes ago, topgun2 said:

It seems to me that the appropriate course of action at this point would be to wait to see what (if anything) Oliver comes back with in regards to the rewards program.

Agreed.   Unless and until Oliver deletes the present Indemnification paragraph in its Terms and Conditions for the Rewards Program, and substitutes language providing the opposite, i.e., that Oliver will fully defend and indemnify Oliver owners if they get sued for personal injuries incurred when showing their Oliver, I will not be signing up.

[Wayfinder]

I may have missed it mentioned in this long thread, but will there be discussions of the new changes to the program at the Olivery rally in May, in Gunterville State Park?

[topgun2]

On 1/10/2023 at 11:29 AM, MDuncan said:

If anyone has questions, please don't hesitate to message me.

Wayfinder - 

The above is what Matt had to say at the end of his "bullet point" summary of the new program - about half way down on page 1 of this thread.

Matt did a presentation of what is basically this program at last year's rally (2022) but I don't know if he will repeat that during the 2023 rally.  

I'd take him up on his offer about sending him a PM and see what he has to say.

Bill

[John and Debbie]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:50 PM, Mainiac said:

I signed up. Now they issued me a long ID#. And a password? May have to bow out? Just seems like a hassle somehow?

Usually you can choose to save user name (apparently a number in this case) and password, or just user name and supply the password.  On things other than my Cayman Island or Swiss bank accounts, I opt for the KISS method and just save as much as they allow for ease of logging in.  I would be surprised if there's not an easy way to just save log in information.

John

[topgun2]

15 hours ago, John Welte said:

I would be surprised if there's not an easy way to just save log in information.

Indeed, there are a number of "apps" that will save passwords and associated login information for you.  Wallet, My Password Manager, Password Depot, Norton, Keeper, etc. can all be used for this function.

Bill