Wayne's Automotive Center & Xpress Lube

In July (July 16), I paid Wayne's Automotive Service Center to make repairs and conduct preventative maintenance on my 2004 Ford Excursion Diesel. These repairs and preventative maintenance services directly resulted in such excessive engine damage that the vehicle was totaled by Wayne's insurance company ([redacted]). While the insurance company used industry standards to value my vehicle, there was no opportunity or option to negotiate real value or real investment made to the operating or aesthetic condition of the vehicle. We lost a considerable amount of money because we had invested heavily in the vehicle because it suited our family needs.Product_Or_Service: Vehicle repair servicesDesired SettlementI requested that Wayne's Automotive at least reimburse the $606.53 that I paid them to provide inferior mechanical services that forfeit my investment in my vehicle (and I can provide all documentation of my investments). My request was denied. It is my understanding that NRS 487.688 requires that vehicle repair 'garages' perform repairs in accordance with any specifications of the manufacturer of the vehicle. Since Wayne's failed to do this, I am entitled to my money back.Business Response Due to technician error (apparently a coolant hose clamp was not tightened enough)coolant loss caused the customer's engine to overheat and it needed replacing. Due to the high cost of the engine the matter was turned over to our insurance company. The vehicle was totaled by the insurance company who paid the customer for the fair market value of the vehicle in good mechanical condition. The customer is requesting that we reimburse her for getting the vehicle in good mechanical condition. We believe the insurance settlement was for the real value of the vehicle and satisfied our liability for this faulty repair. Therefore, we do not believe the customer is not entitled to additional compensation for her vehicle. Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)Obviously, the vehicle was not in good mechanical condition when the mechanic failed to properly install a hose clamp in accordance with vehicle manufacturer specifications. In addition, the fair market value of the vehicle does not accommodate the out-of-pocket expenses paid for the repairs on the vehicle that resulted in total loss of the vehicle, nor any of the prior material or labor costs invested in the vehicle, such as new shocks installed in May 2014, immediately prior to traveling to Reno. These real costs are outstanding liabilities that should be reasonably paid by Wayne's Automotive Center, yet they do not factor into the fair market value of the vehicle (because we attempted to negotiate with the insurance adjuster to recover these losses, but we were clearly told that these expenses should be sought in civil court, not from the insurance agency). Currently, I have not elected to seek the entire sum of capital invested in the vehicle in 2014 (or prior and including approximately $1,600 worth of repairs paid to Wayne's Automotive Center in June 2014), but merely the portion of my expenses paid to Wayne's Automotive Center that directly resulted in complete failure of the engine and loss of my vehicle (on I80, between [redacted] and [redacted], with 2 children in the car and dragging a trailer, with Mac trucks speeding by us all as we sat in a ditch praying not to get hit. Wayne's Automotive Center's insurance does not quite cover the real loss or expense incurred, and Nevada Revised Statute makes clear Wayne's Automotive Center's obligations to correctly complete repairs.In addition to the loose coolant hose clamp purported by Wayne's Automotive Center, [redacted] in [redacted] confirmed, in writing, the erroneous installation of the oil filter, which was also replaced by Wayne's Automotive Center in July 2014. Consequently, there appears to have been multiple service errors exacted during the servicing of my vehicle. I consider the requested reimbursement to be just and more than fair for the complete misery and financial loss that this event has caused my family. Further, I consider the requested reimbursement consistent with the intent and directive of Nevada Revised Statutes. Final Business Response We admitted making a mistake and not making a complete repair which is one reason this case was given to our insurance company, the first time we have ever done that. They reimbursed the [redacted]'s for the agreed cash value of the vehicle of $16,381 plus tax, all out of pocket hotel and fuel expenses, and vehicle loss of $65 per day for 36 days.While we sympathize with the [redacted]'s we believe the insurance settlement was fair and no further compensation is due. Final Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)First, let's clarify that our reimbursement for the vehicle was not necessarily based on an "agreed upon cash value." We really had no choice in the matter, particularly since we live in [redacted] and the vehicle was in Nevada. I put over $3500 into the vehicle in the first half of 2014 that is unrecoverable because it was considered, "maintenance." In addition, we got 1/2 the money we paid to have a cattle-guard bumper put on the vehicle less than a year before you totaled it. There's very little "agreement" factored into the insurance process and anyone that has been through it with a nice vehicle on the line probably knows it. Second, we were reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses associated with the vehicle breaking down and loss of use of our truck (while we were trying to move residences in [redacted]), which is customary and expected. It is unseemly to take credit for that money. It was reasonably owed.Third, let me break this down in another way. My car was totaled and Wayne's insurance paid for the vehicle, at the rate that the insurance company assigned (and I was pickled and had to accept this value despite demonstrable cash loss). Let's just say someone ran a red light and hit my vehicle and did enough damage that their insurance totaled it. Applied to this situation, it would be like I would have paid the offending driver $606.53 to hit my car. Similarly, I ended up paying Wayne's Automotive Center $606.53 to provide inferior service that led to the complete and utter destruction of my vehicle. This is a direct out-of-pocket expense for improperly conducted services. Insurance reimbursement for the "assigned" value of my car is a totally separate issue apart from the transaction where I paid Wayne's Automotive Center for services performed in error. At this point, it appears to me that Wayne's Automotive Center feels entitled to keep the money they were paid when they performed faulty services on my vehicle. I don't think it's right for a company to profit for providing admittedly wrongful services. This point has nothing to do with their insurance company or what the INSURANCE COMPANY paid for the vehicle; it has everything to do with a vehicle-service garage failing to provide standard services in accordance with industry standards and not refunding the client's money. This is a very myopic marketing platform.I don't believe this issue will reach adequate resolution because Wayne's clearly doesn't want to reimburse me the money I paid for them to ruin my car. The excuse that insurance paid for my car does not excuse their inadequate and damaging performance, which I should not have to pay for.

Very professional! I have a 2011 Ram 3500. I had a motor mount issue and brought my own parts, they called and let me know I only needed one replaced instead of both which saved me some money. Had them diagnose a fuel leak also which I was a little nervous about because I know shops sometimes like to take advantage when diagnosing. Turns out it was a simple O ring! Could've taken advantage of me but they didn't! They had my truck in and out of their shop in just 1 day from when I first called them!","pos-1