C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

October 6, 2015VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINTID# [redacted]2007 CHRYSLER PACIFICAVIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated October 5, 2015, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On June 8, 2015, the customer purchased the abovereferenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on June 12, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).On September 22, 2015, CARS received the attached email, sent at 3:53 p.m. from the customer advising us that the repair facility had tried to call us and was unable to reach CARS. On that same day, at 4:11 p.m., we responded to the customer via email and advised that we had no records of any telephone calls or voice messages from the repair facility starting from 11:15 a.m. At that point in the day, the repair facility finally' telephoned CARS to open a claim.On September 22, 2015 at 4:06 p.m. the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing left wheel bearing and engine issues. We then aavised the repair facility of our claim procedures.On September 22, 2015, at 4:11 p.m., we responded to the customer via email and advised that we had no records of any telephone calls or voice messages from the repair facility starting from 11:15 a.m.On September 22, 2015 at 5:05 p.m., the repair facility advised a CARS claim adjustor that there was a knocking noise coming from the lower engine. The claim adjustor attempted to go over the customer's Service Contract coverage; however, the representative from the repair facility became very upset about the labor amount CARS could assist with towards the repair of the customer's vehicle. The claim adjustor had to end the telephone call with the repair facility due to name calling and profanities.On September 23, 2015 at 9:35 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they did not want to work with the same CARS claim adjustor and asked to speak to a manager. The call was transferred to a claim manager.On September 23, 2015 at 1:14 p.m., the claims manager returned the repair facility's telephone call. The claims manager found the repair facility representative to be very combative and argumentative. The repair facility refused to allow the claims manager to answer any questions or explain the Service Contract coverage that the customer agreed to for his vehicle. The claims manager told the repair facility that CARS would not be able to work with his repair facility. The claims manager further advised the repair facility to have the customer move his vehicle to a new repair facility.On September 23, 2015 at 1:41 p.m., the customer gave permission for CARS to speak to his mother on his behalf. CARS advised the customer's mother that CARS is no longer willing to work with the repair facility due to the telephone conversations between the repair facility and CARS. CARS further advised that the customer would need to have his vehicle moved to a new facility for CARS to be able to assist with the repairs to his vehicle. CARS then reviewed the customer’s Service Contract coverage.By the customer’s signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. The customer’s Service Contract states at Paragraph 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES:A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage and You are responsible for all charges.” We include tear-down to the point of component failure in our diagnostics to increase the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.The Service Contract also states at Paragraph 3 (a):“SERVICECONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: ...CARS reserves the right to have the repairs performed at a location other than the one You have selected." Here, both a claim manager and a claim adjustor attempted to review the customer's Service Contract coverage with the repair facility and where not permitted to by the repair facility. Therefore, CARS is not able to work with the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductibleCARS is willing to work with another repair facility pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract in order to get the customer's vehicle repaired. The customer would be responsible for any costs involved with moving his vehicle to a new repair facility and a new claim must be opened before any repairs are done to the customer's vehicle.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason ** M[redacted]General Counsel

VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITEDear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2017 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 29, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer...

also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 1, 2015 (the attached “Service Contract").Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract two (2) claims have been opened as follows:First Claim: On February 22, 2017 at 9:28 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repairfacility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing starter, emergency brake, front wheel bearing, and left front spring issues. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility.Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on February 28, 2017 CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $173.00 for the repair of the customer's vehicle via credit card. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on March 9, 2017 CARS paid our supplier in the amount of $342.07 for parts for the repair of the customer's vehicle via check.Second Claim: On March 7, 2017 at 10:07 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing grinding noises when the vehicle was starting. The repair facility advised that the flywheel in the customer's vehicle had failed. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility.Upon review of the repair facility's estimate, CARS ordered a flywheel for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Due to circumstances beyond CARS' control, the estimated arrival time of the flywheel is March 23, 2017.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to have the parts supplied by CARS for the repairs needed for the March 6, 2017 mechanical claim opened on behalf of her vehicle.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, the customer is not entitled to any reimbursement for any inconvenience caused by the loss of her vehicle.However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to reimburse the customer in the amount of $250.00 towards her additional expenses caused by the shipping delay of the supplied parts for the flywheel claim opened on behalf of her vehicle. CARS will issue a check directly to the customer upon CARS receipt of a properly submitted invoice for the repair of the customer's vehicle by the repair facility.CARS would like to point out here that we have no control over our supplier's shipping times and delays. When made aware of delays, CARS contacts our suppliers for updated information and will advise the repair facility of any changes in the delivery date. We apologize for the delay of the flywheel.The customer has Service Contract coverage through August 1, 2019. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely, General Counsel

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]

August 28, 2017VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 MAZDA CX-7 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 28, 2017, enclosing the additional concerns regarding the above-referenced consumer complaint.The additional concerns of the customer and the documentation provided by the customer's repair facility were thoroughly reviewed by our Claims Director, who has extensive knowledge in vehicle mechanical repairs. Pursuant to the Claims Director, the multiple severe oil leaks and other mechanical issues are relevant to the proper function of the timing chain on the customer's vehicle. Specifically, the timing chain tensioner is an integral part of the performance of the timing chain. The timing chain tensioner is operated by oil pressure. If the vehicle is low on oil pressure, then the timing chain tensioner will not function properly and will cause the timing chain to have slack. As a result of the oil leaks and low oil pressure in the customer's vehicle, when the vehicle is started it would take time for oil pressure in the vehicle to build in order for the timing chain tensioner to operate, which would create a noise from the timing chain. Once the oil pressure is sufficient, the noise to the timing chain would diminish. Additionally, due to the multiple severe oil leaks and failed non-covered components, the customer's vehicle is throwing multiple failure codes as evidenced by the “CEL" being displayed, which are relevant to the current mechanical issues with the customer's vehicle.As stated previously, the repair facility found that when the customer's vehicle was started, it rattled like a loose chain, but the noise went away after about 30 seconds, which confirms that low oil pressure due to severe multiple oil leaks in the customer's vehicle do affect the customer's vehicle and any pending timing chain issues.If the oil leaks and the other non-covered components are not addressed and repaired, the customer's vehicle will continue to incur mechanical issues, not only with the timing chain, but with other components in the customer's vehicle.Before CARS can move forward with any possible assistance with any remaining issues with the timing chain on the customer's vehicle, all the oil leaks and the non-covered components must be repaired, the "CEL" light must be cleared and the vehicle retested.Once the above-referenced repairs are completed and the vehicle is then torn-down to the point of any component failure, CARS is willing to have an independent inspection performed on the customer's vehicle to determine if CARS can offer any assistance with any covered repaired, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract.To reiterate, CARS is not requesting any undue repairs or tear-down, CARS is just trying to determine the actual failed components of the vehicle to ensure that it is properly repaired the first time.Ms. [redacted], I hope this information is helpful in explaining CARS position regarding this customer's current pending mechanical claim with CARS. If you have any further questions, please contact my office.Sincerely,Jason * M[redacted]General Counsel

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2008 SUBARU IMPREZA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your February 16, 2016 letter enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint and respond as follows: On November 14, 2015, the customer...

purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on November 18, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). The customer's Service Contract expires on February 18, 2016. On February 9, 2016, at 2:12 p.m., a mechanical claim was opened by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing cylinder head, timing belt, water pump and valve cover issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On February 9, 2016, at 2:35 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had an oil leak on the right side of the engine. The repair facility advised that the cam seal became overheated and melted causing an active leak. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle needed a head, the intake valve was stuck and the timing belt was contaminated from the oil leak. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle and contact CARS with their findings. On February 10, 2016, at 11:54 a.m., the repair facility advised that after the front cover was removed they found the right cam seal had melted and caused an oil leak. The repair facility advised that the cam caps and rocker arms were discolored and the cylinder head needed to be replaced. CARS then advised the repair facility to fax an estimate to CARS for review. On February 11, 2016, at 9:34 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the failure to the customer's vehicle was caused by an oil leak; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS was not able to assist with the repair to the customer’s vehicle. On February 11, 2016, at 9:34 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the customer and advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS was not able to assist with the repair to the customer’s vehicle. On February 11, 2016, at 11:13 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the repair facility and advised that according to the estimate submitted by the repair facility, all of the failures to the engine were caused by oil leaks. CARS advised that pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is unable to assist with any failures caused by oil leaks. By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under Covered Components: "SEALS & GASKETS: NOT COVERED:       Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with replacement of a covered component. Additionally, cylinder head gaskets are covered for combustion and coolant leaks. Intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks only. NOT COVERED: oil and vacuum leaks." Furthermore the customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle found that a failed cam seal (non-covered component) caused an oil leak which caused the damage to the customer's vehicle. Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. For these reasons, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the February 9, 2016 claim made on behalf of his vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

September 26, 2016VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2000 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated, September 23,...

2016, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 20, 2016 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on July 21, 2016 (the attached Service Contract).On September 23, 2016 at 9:17 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission/clutch issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures.On September 23, 2016 at 9:26 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS the customer’s vehicle was driven to the repair facility on September 22, 2016. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues shifting into first gear and the clutch was slipping.On September 23, 2016 at 1:31 p.m., in a recorded telephone call the customer advised CARS that during the test drive his vehicle experienced issues shifting into gear. The customer advised that he thought the shifting issue was a fluke; however, the shifting issue started again.On September 23, 2016 at 2:10 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that since the shifting issue was present during the test drive which was prior to vehicle purchase and prior to CARS' acceptance of the customer's Service Contract on lulv 21, 2016. CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs to his vehicle.On September 23, 2016 at 2:16 p.m., CARS advised the customer that since the shifting issue was present during the test drive which was prior to CARS' acceptance of his Service Contract on lulv 21, 2016, CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs to his vehicle.On September 23, 2016 at 4:14 p.m., CARS' customer service manager reviewed the claim again with the customer. The customer service supervisor further advised that pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are not covered. CARS' customer service manager further advised the customer that the clutch and related components were not covered under his Service Contract.By the customer's signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. Directly above the customer’s signature, it states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase.” Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. CARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.”As stated previously, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on September 23, 2016, that his vehicle experienced shifting issues during the test drive of his vehicle which was prior to CARS acceptance of his Service Contract on lulv 21. 2106.When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer's vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the September 23, 2016 transmission/clutch claim because the transmission/clutch issues were present prior to CARS' acceptance with payment of the customer’s Service Contract.CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect after they are received with payment, processed and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., which may be different than the date of vehicle purchase. The customer’s Service Contract was processed and approved on lulv 21. 2016.The customer has coverage on his vehicle through October 21, 2016 or when the odometer on his vehicle registers 94,843 miles, whichever occurs first. If his vehicle incurs further mechanical issues, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Power Train Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 27, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 31, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3...

Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 5, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). On February 24, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle was experiencing cam sensor and timing belt issues. We then reviewed the rental benefits the claim procedures pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract. On February 24, 2015 at 3:58 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing timing belt, crank and cam sensor issues. We then went over claim procedures. On February 24, 2015 at 3:47 p.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility. The repair facility advised that the codes for the cam sensor and the crank sensor were displayed. The repair facility also advised that the timing chain may have issues. The repair facility further advised that some previous repair had been done to the timing chain as evidenced by loose bolts. The repair facility then advised CARS that they had told the customer that they did not want to work with warranty companies and they are not going to do the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. The claim was then closed. On February 25, 2015 at 8:53 a.m., a customer service representative responded to a voice message left by the customer. The customer wanted to know why CARS was denying her claim. The customer service representative advised the customer that the repair facility does not want to work with CARS, and we neither denied nor authorized the claim. We further explained that CARS needs specific information to process the mechanical claim made on behalf of her vehicle. We advised the customer that the repair facility could speak to a claim manager, and provided information to reach the claim managers.On February 25, 2015 at 10:53 a.m., a claims manager advised the repair facility of CARS' claim procedures pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim manager advised that the customer was responsible for any difference in labor rate, tax, fluid, filters, and deductible, diagnostic or teardown charges where applicable and any charges/expenses beyond what CARS authorizes. We also explained that CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs. We additionally advised the repair facility that he was to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of failure and contact us with the repair facility's findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle. The repair facility was advised that CARS would not be responsible for any repairs done without prior authorization. The repair facility was advised to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down the customer's vehicle to the point of failure and contact us with the findings. On February 26, 2015 at 2:31 p.m., the repair facility advised a claims manager that the customer told him to go ahead with the repair of her vehicle. The repair facility advised that they replaced the cam sensor and the crank sensor. He went over the prices and then stated that he did not have time to deal with this. He told the claims manager to call the customer and work it out with her. The claims manager then advised the repair facility that we would not be able to assist with the repair because the work was completed without prior authorization from CARS. On February 26, 2015 at 2:41 p.m., the claims manager advised the customer that we would not be able to assist with the repairs because the work was completed without prior authorization from CARS. The customer was very upset during this telephone conversation. On February 26, 2015 at 2:43 p.m., CARS' office manager reviewed the mechanical claim in depth with the customer and explained that the repair facility did not obtain authorization prior to repairing her vehicle. The customer then asked for a refund. The office manager advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer is not eligible for a refund. By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1(c): COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, Your signature, repair facility's warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility's identifying information." The identification card also states: "C.A.R.S. will not be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed on the customer's vehicle. The claim procedures outlined on customer’s service contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that all CARS' customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers' service contract. It also states clearly on the identification card clearly states "WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORK. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice." As you can clearly see from the above information, the repair facility was fully aware that authorization was needed prior to work being performed on the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility stated that they did not want to work with a warranty company during a telephone call on February 24, 2015. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the February 24, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant to the customer's service contract. CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer and the repair facility that was chosen by the customer to repair the vehicle failed to follow the claim procedures that must be followed by all CARS’ customers. In her consumer complaint the customer is asking for a refund of her Service Contract. CARS is regulated by state statutes regarding customer refunds. Here, no state statute in [redacted] requires CARS to refund service contract; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time. If the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of her Service Contract on May 5, 2015 the customer and any repair facility chosen by her must follow the claims procedures outlined above, which are contained on her Service Contract and the contract identification card provided to the customer. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.   Jason P. McConnell General Counsel

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer’s additional concerns and respond as follows: On March 17, 2015 at 11:32 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing fuel pump and rack and pinion issues. The repair facility advised that that there was an internal failure in the CARS supplied rack. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised that our suppler would be calling the repair facility. On March 17, 2015 at 1:24 p.m., CARS advised our supplier of the failure to the steering gear and that the repair facility was waiting on his call. On March 18, 2015 at 1:22 p.m., CARS arranged with our supplier to have the steering gear shipped overnight to the repair facility to avoid any delays in down time for the customer. On March 18, 2015 at 3:48 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the fuel pump for $213.50. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair of the fuel pump should take 4.5 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $337.50. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $451.00, and we could supply the fuel pump and pay $227.50 towards labor or pay $451.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash option towards the repair of his choice. CARS then gave the repair facility a CARS' authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicle. CARS also advised the repair facility that CARS would supply the rack to the repair facility at no charge to the customer and pay for the related rack labor charges at the repair facility rates of $135.00 per hour for a total of $607.50. Therefore, the customer will incur no additional costs as a result of the repair facility advising CARS that the rack had failed. CARS then gave the repair facility a CARS’ authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicle. We would like to point out here that CARS did not verily the internal failure of the rack. CARS ordered a replacement rack immediately and paid extra overnight shipping to avoid any inconvenience to the customer. During that same telephone call on March 18, 2014, CARS advised the repair facility that the core from the February 24, 2014 mechanical claim must be returned to the supplier as well as the failed rack. We further advised that the supplier would send call tags for the requested return. CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. The customer has service contract coverage on the above- referenced vehicle through January 16, 2019. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS will pay accordingly. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,[redacted] [redacted]General Counsel

August 18, 2016 VIA:    SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE:      Complaint No. [redacted] 2002 CADILLAC ESCALADE VIN (Last 8)[redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am...

in receipt of your letter dated August 16, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 17, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 17, 2016. First Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 9:57 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner line issues and needed to be recharged. We advised that the air conditioner line is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed. Second Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor, drier, and condenser issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 27, 2016 at 4:12 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $292.00 and the condenser for $70.99. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $48.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.8 hours to complete, and repair facility's hourly rate was $65.00. Therefore, total labor was $247.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $556.99, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $147.00 towards labor, or pay $556.99 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer’s decision. On July 28, 2016 at 10:38 a.m., CARS reviewed the options we could offer for the repair of his vehicle with the customer. The customer advised us that he may take his vehicle to another repair facility for the repairs. CARS then advised the customer that if he did remove his vehicle from the repair facility a new claim would have to be opened on behalf of his vehicle. On July 28, 2016 at 4:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed his vehicle without any repairs being performed on his vehicle. The claim was then closed. Third Claim: On August 9, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a second repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On August 10, 2016 at 1:17 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $253.51 and the drier for $35.86. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $45.57. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.2 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $154.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $388.94, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $54.00 towards labor, or pay $388.94 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer's decision. On August 10, 2016 at 2:08 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle. On that same day, on August 10, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On August 10, 2016, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, upon receipt of a proper invoice, CARS paid the repair facility $388.94 towards the repair of the air conditioner via credit card. On August 15, 2016 at 2:04 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they performed the authorized repairs; however, the customer’s vehicle had no air conditioning in the rear of his vehicle. The repair facility further advised that the rear air expansion valve had failed. CARS advised that the rear expansion valve is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. On August 16, 2016 at 9:54 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like to be paid the rest of the thirty (30) day quote that CARS provided during the processing of the July 27, 2016 claim to another repair facility. The customer stated that we originally quoted him $600.00; however, we only paid $388.94. CARS advised that we paid the amount we authorized to the current repair facility for the parts and labor (see attached invoice). CARS advised that the failure of the expansion valve and any damage caused by that failure were not covered under his Service Contract. We further advised that we do not give thirty (30) day quotes. On August 16, 2016 at 11:24 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the current and previous claims with the customer. By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to take the cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, on August 15, 2016 the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear expansion valve issues. These components are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS cannot assist with the repair/replacement of the expansion valve. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(a): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: ...The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." Here, the July 27, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle by the first repair facility was closed on July 28, 2016 when the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility. During a telephone call with the customer on July 28, 2016, CARS advised the customer that if he removed his vehicle from the repair facility, a new claim would need to be opened on behalf of his vehicle whenever he took his vehicle to a repair facility for repairs. CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract and what is necessary for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, CARS authorized the claim based on the information provided by the repair facility and paid the claim as per the authorized parts listed on the invoice. During the processing of the August 9, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS authorized an a/c compressor for $253.51, a drier for $35.86, and fluids for $45.57 and 2.2 hours for labor, less the deductible, based on the information provided by the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle for a total of $388.94. CARS cannot apply monies from an authorization for a closed claim towards the open claim. Therefore, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist any further with the August 9, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer. CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. The customer has Service Contract coverage through February 18, 2020. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2001 FORD F150VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]   I am in receipt of your letter dated July 21, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumercomplaint and respond as follows: According to our records the customer purchased the...

abovereferencedvehicle on June 21, 2014 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Value PlusService Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS onJune 30, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). The customer's Service Contract expired on June30,2015.   On June 2, 2015 at 2:46 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advisingthat the customer's vehicle was experiencing left door lock actuator issues.On June 2, 2015 at 3:08 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised ourclaims adjustor that they could not give us the current mileage on the customer's vehicle becausethe odometer was inoperable and did not illuminate.On that same date at 4:34 p.m., our claims adjustor advised the repair facility that thecustomer's Service Contract was cancelled due to the inoperable odometer.The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms andConditions of your Power Train Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states: "TERMSAND CONDITIONS at 2 (e): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: An inoperativeodometer, and/or odometer display, voids the Service Contract without refund.” Here asstated above, the repair facility advised us that the customer's odometer was not working and nomileage could be displayed; therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer anyassistance with the mechanical claim and cancelled the customer’s Service Contract.CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facilities, since we are unable to inspect each and every vehicle that has an open mechanical claim. Based upon the information provided by the repair facility, and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the customer's claim and his Service Contract is now cancelled.The customer states in his consumer complaint that his service contract is unlimited miles; therefore the inoperable odometer has no bearing. The ability to track accurate mileage on the customer’s odometer from the date of acceptance of his service contract is critical in order to ensure proper and timely maintenance for optimum vehicle performance. A functional odometer is also necessary in order to determine the length and scope of service contract coverage, as well as to determine the warranty miles for any shop supplied and/or CARS supplied parts.As stated above, the customer's Service Contract expired on June 30, 2015; therefore, his vehicle no longer has Service Contract coverage under any of CARS service contracts.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel[redacted]

COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 FORD F250 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] 1 am in receipt of your letter dated November 9, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 8, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle....

On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Onyx Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 9, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). After a management review of the customer's consumer complaint, CARS determined that the customer was entitled to full refund of the amount CARS received for his Service Contract. Attached please find a copy of our check no. [redacted] which will be mailed to the customer's lienholder. By Mr. [redacted]' signature on his Service Contract he stated that he read understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "You have the right to cancel Your Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your Cars I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid, by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S.” Please note that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to selling dealers. Therefore, what Mr. [redacted] paid for his Service Contract (i.e. $2,400.00) is not what CARS received for the cost of his Service Contract. The amount received by CARS is reflected in the copy of the attached check made out to the customer's lienholder. CARS advised the selling dealer that the customer is eligible for a refund and the selling dealer is responsible for providing the remaining amount to the customer's lienholder (see attached letter). When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. Cars protection has not returned my refund check nor has [redacted] auto group return my refund check. I have contacted [redacted] auto group questioning about my refund check and they have not returned any of my calls nor answered my concerns.Regards,
[redacted]

June 5, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]RE: COMPLAINT ID# [redacted]2006 FORD MUSTANG GT VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated May 30, 2017, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 31, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 5, 2015. (See attached "Service Contract")On May 30, 2017 at 1:19 p.m., the customer contacted CARS advising that the control arms and ball joints had been replaced in her vehicle. The customer advised that she had unsuccessfully attempted to contact CARS for a review of our claim procedures and was submitting a claim for the completed repairs. The customer then requested to speak to a supervisor.On May 30, 2017 at 1:27 p.m., the customer advised CARS customer service manager that she had both control arms and ball joints replaced at a repair facility over the Memorial Day weekend. The customer service manager reviewed our claim procedures with the customer. The customer service manager advised that we could not assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle since the proper claim procedures were not followed. The customer service manager then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with her.On May 31, 2017, CARS mailed a CARS’ Service Contract I.D. card to the customer.By the customer's signature on her Ultimate Value Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the customer's Service Contract under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(b): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility MUST call CARS at ###-###-#### to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun."The Service Contract further states at 3(e] and at 3(g]: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun.” and “If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by CARS, an authorization number will be issued for the repair. The authorization number is valid for 180 days from the date issued. After 180 days the authorization number and claim are void. No invoice will be processed without a valid authorization number, Your signature, repair facility's warranty on the repairs (if applicable) and repair facility's identifying information."Here, the customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in her Service Contract by having a claim opened prior to having her vehicle repaired. Therefore, CARS was unable to provide the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs because the customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in her Service Contract.By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the Service Contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs (control arms and ball joints) would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. The repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle never provided CARS with its findings or an estimate prior to the repair of her vehicle. Here, CARS' claim procedures were not followed; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to pay for any repairs performed by the repair facility.For all the reasons stated above, CARS was correct in advising the customer that we were unable to assist with the repair of her vehicle since the repair to her vehicle was done prior to having a claim opened on behalf of her vehicle and CARS providing an authorization number for the repair of her vehicle.However, in a goodwill gesture, if the customer provides CARS with an invoice for the repair of her vehicle, CARS is willing to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: If the claim procedures outlined in the customer's Service Contract werefollowed, CARS could have supplied the ball joints for $40.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.6 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $100.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor is $160.00. The claim would also be subject to a $100.00 deductible; however, CARS will waive the deductible for the customer. Therefore, CARS can assist with repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $200.00.Regardless of when the claim would have been opened, CARS is unable to assist with the repair/replacement of the control arms because the control arms are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract.If the customer is willing to accept our goodwill offer in the amount of $200.00 and provides us with the invoice for the repair of her vehicle, CARS will issue a check to the customer.The customer's Service Contract expires on January 5, 2019. Should the customer's vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the service contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.When a claim is presented, CARS promptly investigates all circumstances surrounding the claim. CARS honors every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100% to ultimately provide quality service at an affordable price to offset the cost of a covered repair.Sincerely,Jason ** M[redacted]General Counsel[redacted]Attachment

February 4, 2016VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 AUDI A6 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated February 1, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On September 18, 2014, the customer...

purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 19, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).On January 4, 2016 at 1:24 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer's son advising that the customer’s vehicle was transmission issues. CARS reviewed transmission coverage and claim procedures pursuant to the customer's Service Contract.First Claim: On January 11, 2016 at 1:46 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On January 11, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., CARS contacted the repair facility to inquire if they performed internal transmission work. The repair facility advised that they only performed removal and replacement of transmissions. CARS then advised the repair facility that the customer would have to move her vehicle to another repair facility capable to perform tear-down to the point of component failure.On January 11, 2016 at 2:50 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the repair facility that her vehicle was at for the transmission issues with her vehicle does not perform internal transmission work. CARS further advised that the repair facility's labor rate was $115.95 per hour and her Service Contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. We advised that she would have to move her vehicle to a repair facility that is capable of performing internal transmission work. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On January 18, 2016 at 2:28 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On January 18, 2016 at 3:15 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on January 15, 2016. The repair facility advised that there were no leaks and the fluid was full and varnished. The repair facility further advised that check engine light was displayed along with seven (7) codes and none were transmission codes. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.On January 19, 2016 at 3:43 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to ask what was covered under her Service Contract. CARS advised that her Service Contract covers internally lubricated parts within the transmission housing. CARS advised that without teardown to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage, CARS would be unable to move forward with her transmission claim.On January 25, 2016 at 10:46 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was that the clutch drum broke causing metal in the fluid.On January 26, 2016 at 9:31 a.m., after CARS had the opportunity to check on the availability of parts, we then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply a transmission for $1,000.00. We could also authorize $75.00 towards fluid for the repair. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 8.8 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $528.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,503.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $428.00 towards labor and $75.00 towards fluids for the repair or pay $1,503.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.On January 26, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of her choice. CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle.On February 2, 2016 at 2:26 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to question the amount she paid for the repair of her vehicle. CARS advised that we were informed by the repair facility she would take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of choice. We advised that she had the option of having CARS supply a transmission to the repair facility for her vehicle. The customer advised that the repair facility never gave her that option. CARS advised that she would have to speak to her repair facility about not presenting her with that option.CARS will pay the repair facility in the amount of $1,503.00 via credit card upon receipt of a proper invoice.By the customer's signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of componentfailure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. CARS is not responsible for any tear-down time.The Service Contract states under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair will be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility’s rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference." During the claim intake calls on January 18, 2016 the repair facility advised CARS that the cost of labor was $95.00 per hour. Upon receipt of a properly submitted invoice to CARS from the repair facility, CARS will pay for 8.8 hours of labor at $60.00 per hour for the January 18, 2016 transmission claim. As stated above, the time allowed for repairs is based on Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide. The customer is responsible for any amount of time over the allowed amount. CARS is not responsible for any tear-down time.The customer's Service Contract states: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service ContractHolder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless ofreason, is not included." Here, as stated above the time to repair/replace the covered components was 8.8 hours. Therefore, CARS will pay the customer $25.00 toward the rental costs incurred during the repair of her vehicle.It is also states at Paragraph 1 (s): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Taxes and repair facility charges." Here, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, she is responsible for any taxes incurred with the repair of her vehicle. Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the customer's Service Contract. The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through September 19, 2016. Should her vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of her Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 28, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 26, 2014. On that same date she also applied for a...

CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on December 15, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).                             On April 27, 2015, at 1:14 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission line and transmission selector shaft seal issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.  On April 27, 2015, at 2:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the transmission lines and transmission selector shaft seal were leaking. We advised the repair facility that these were non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    On April 27, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., the customer's husband telephoned CARS to check on the status of the mechanical claim. We advised that the transmission lines and transmission selector shaft seal are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. We advised that the Service Contracts are limited in their coverage.  On April 27, 2015, at 2:43 p.m., the customer called a CARS customer service representative requesting a list of covered and non-covered components. The customer service representative advised that we could send a copy of her Service Contract as covered components are listed on the Service Contract. The customer service representative further advised that CARS would need a written request for a copy of the customer’s contract. The customer was unhappy with that suggestion and was transferred to a supervisor.  On April 27, 2015, at 2:43 p.m., the customer advised the Customer Service Manager that she wanted a list of covered and non-covered components. The Customer Service Manager advised the customer that the covered parts are listed on the Service Contract. The customer became very upset and ended the telephone call.   By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions other Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Componentsnot listed regardless of failure.” The transmission line and transmission selector shaft seal are not listed for coverage; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair.   It is also stated on the customer’s Service Contract under "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS, GASKETS, & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." Here, the transmission selector shaft seal would not be covered because the customer's vehicle does not need to have any covered parts replaced.  Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.  CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the April 27, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.  The customer has service contract coverage through December 15, 2018. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of her Value Plus Service Contract.  When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.                                             Sincerely,                                            [redacted]                                           General Counsel

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted] I rebuttle this contract warrenty because I feel that the warrenty company was set on only paying for what the felt should be paid. Which they new was not covered because  because of the price. I feel  this is a warrenty that is being sold that really has no coverage value at all. I will be faxing a copy of said warrenty because ,would a consumer buy a warrenty that has no price on the parts that the warrent use hell no like I said this is a bogus warrenty.Revdex.com should really stop these companys from selling warrentys that reall do'nt cover what they say the cover I need a fax number for your Revdex.com head quarters.
Thak Revdex.com for responding so fast.

I filed a complaint against Cars Protection Plus earlier tonight. In the complaint, I stated that I would like them to refund a portion of the price that I paid for the warranty (650.00). I no longer want any portion of the warranty refunded - I want my vehicle repaired correctly!!!! I received a...

call tonight from my mechanic [redacted]) from [redacted] Ave. Automotive. He installed the "worn out" used part that was sent by Cars Protection Plus to repair my vehicle. The part is not usable and I am again unable to use my vehicle (my vehicle has been "down" for three weeks). Please look into this company and assist me, and other consumers, in making this company accountable for their actions. I am also going to contact the Attorney Generals Office and file a complaint with them. -[redacted]

May 3, 2016 VIA:    First Class Mail [redacted] RE:       Revdex.com COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] APRIL 11, 2016 TRANSMISSION CLAIM 2008 CHEVY IMPALA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] Enclosed...

please find our check no. [redacted], in the amount of $225.00, representing full and final settlement of the above-referenced matter.