BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

540 caught fire

34K views 139 replies 57 participants last post by  Bmwkt11 
#1 ·
I have a 540 year 2000 which caught fire the other night coming home. BMW says it was a faulty electronic thermostat that started it. So far I am up to $4000.00 in damages under the hood. Who knows what damage is under the dash since the inside of the car filled with smoke!

BMW claims they dont have any recalls or faulty parts (Then why did my car catch on fire!).

And to make matters worse the insurance company will not pay for any damage because "A FLAME WAS NOT VISIBLE". What a bunch of crap this is.

Anyone with any knowledge please give me a shout at beemer540ia AT yahoo...

Thank you,
Ken
 
#137 ·
Johhiegold: If I missed the answer somewhere, forgive me. This is obviously a thread of great interest to many and there is a lot of dialogue. The insurance company was not there. They maybe correct actually that there were no flames. That appears to be a pretty narrow definition of fire/combustion/whatever that a flame must be visible. But, "ok" it is their language and regardless how petty it sounds they chose this language and the consumer accepted it. I just want to understand how they reached the conclusion that there NEVER, at any point, were flames visible to you or not as I assume that the hood was closed at first when the smoke started to be noticed in the cabin. On what information was it decided that flame was never present? I realize it is later in the whole deal, you have reached your end with it and moved on- I am not-- um, trying to fan the flames of the whole ordeal. I just have been reading this since it was three pages and I kept thinking someone else would ask or I would find the answer.. Just very curious about how after-the-fact the pronouncement was made that not flame ever existed? Nuff said.

The second part is when an insurance company decides for whatever reason to make their insured covered against fire damage, what do they really mean or "intend"to mean? A flame causes no damage in and of itself. The flame is obviously just an indication of very high heat. The heat does the damage and the flame is a secondary, totally insignificant by-product. It is even less important in terms of damage than smoke, soot, or the actual flame. You intend to cover someone from the effects of intense heat. I guess they want to make sure they don't get claims for dashboards that are ruined in the intense heat of the sun?? Interesting argument about exactly what tragedy they feel compelled to save their insured from. Pure sodium placed on top of a bowl of water will generate intense heat and if metal is introduced to the equation of sodium and water it will generally explode. (ask me how I know). Sparklers burn yet have no flame. An electrical failure such as yours near a rubber fuel line could have ended far worse. I assume then it would have been covered regardless of what started it? Sorry,I guess I should have tried out for the debate team in HS if I am so interested in intent vs. actual and the like. I tend to focus on the intent of a document rather than the actual written word. My bad!
 
#138 ·
540iman, I think you are confusing my situation with the original poster. In his case, I believe the insurance company indicated that they would not cover the insured because there was no visible flame and that the damage was caused by a mechanical malfunction which they do not cover. After some wrangling with the insurance company and BMW, I think they reached an agreed upon settlement.

In my situation, I raised the hood of the car and did a see fire which I was able to extinguish. Certainly there was evidence of fire damage that the claims adjuster could see. My insurance company has already issued me a check to cover the repairs on the car for a new wiring harness, computer and labor. The insurance co. would not pay for the thermostat as they deemed it to be the cause of the fire.

Finally, I got a call from the repair shop: 10 days to get a new computer from Germany. Oh well. :rolleyes:

Overall, I am pleased with the outcome. I am covered under comprehensive and have to pay $100 deductible but that is certainly much better than the alternative.

Also, putting in a new thermostat, as its been said before, does not mean this can't happen again. :tsk:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top