Consumer purchased two sets of Firestone supreme tires for two different vehicles. All eight tires had tread separation, each occurred at different times. Dealer only honored the warranty for the first seven tires. The last tread separation caused the vehicle to be totaled, causing injury to consumer's child. On the eighth tire dealer told the consumer that he had to send the tire and all claim information to the corporate office, to be treated as a property damage claim. Firestone, supreme si, P185/ 65 R14 855 M+S. consumer was upset that the legal affairs department of Bridgestone / Firestone intervened and took over the claim from Consumer Affairs because of the child injury, and rejected the claim, stating they not responsible. They told consumer that the tire must have been under inflated, and it was not a manufacturing defect, the problem was in the servicing of the tires, and that tires plus was responsible. The eighth tire was repaired before this incident by a manufacturer's repair at tires plus. Previous problems found with Firestone tires had consumer file compliant 6365296 with the federal trade commission.

- Appling, GA, USA

Car was being driven on a highway 295N in New Jersey. Tire(s) apparently blew causing the tread from the driver side tire to knock the plastic covering loose from the wiring harness which came loose causing loss of power. Dealer is claiming tires were not maintained properly causing the failure therefore the problem is not covered under warranty. Also the insurance adjuster went out on 10/7/99 and agreed that the tires caused the damage and wsa not covered by insurance. My 22 year old son was driving at the time so I have to rely on his account of what happened. He stated that he did not hit anything, the car shimmied and he pulled over to the side of the road and lost all power to the car.

- Yeadon, PA, USA