Accessibility Planning & Development, Inc.

Mr*** refers to the GAP Waiver as being insurance. The GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum (Contract) states: “Warning: This Contract is not an insurance policy, does not provide property damage, liability or collision insurance, and does not comply with any financial responsibility law or any other law mandating motor vehicle insurance coverage.” The Contract is designed to waive the difference between the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle involved in the total loss and the outstanding balance still owed on that vehicle from the purchaser to the lender, when a total loss occurs, based on the terms and conditions of the Contract As previously explained, the Contract does not agree to cover the service contract refund or any deductions made by the insurance company in their total loss settlement with the customer Mr*** should contact the lienholder to ensure the service contract refund was received and posted to his account. If not, he needs to contact the dealership regarding the same. Mr*** may be entitled to a refund on the unearned GAP charge. He would need to contact the original selling dealership for further details on the cancellation of same Mr*** would remain responsible for the $condition adjustment. We regret Mr*** is not satisfied with the claim decision however, there were no GAP deficiencies to be paid out under his Contract Tell us why here

*** *** *** initiated a claim for Ms*** on 11/10/for a date of loss of 10/10/17. Letters were mailed to the customer on 12/20/17, 02/01/and on 2/1/advising of what information was needed for her pending GAP claim. In addition, Ms*** was verbally advised of what was
needed for her claim on 11/14/17, 11/17/17, 11/30/17, 12/13/17, 01/02/18, 01/17/18, 01/25/18, 01/29/18, 01/31/18, and on 02/01/ In an attempt to assist Ms*** with her claim, we contacted the insurance company requesting the required documents. We received the four (4) page insurance declarations page on 02/01/18, and we received the revised total loss documents on 02/6/18. In addition, we contacted the dealership requesting the refund information for the aftermarket warranty she purchased. The refund information was received on 02/01/ On 02/06/18, after receiving the insurance documents, her claim was sent to processing. The claim was reviewed. The claim was denied as there was not a GAP deficiency owed because the amount of the two insurance checks ($25,916.30) were more than the balance of the loan on the date of loss ($25,620.87). A denial letter was mailed to Ms*** on 02/06/18, and she was advised of the same on 02/07/ Ms*** could be entitled to a pro-rated refund of the GAP premium she paid for her GAP Contract. She was advised to contact the dealership to sign the appropriate cancellation documents Ms*** was required to continue making her loan payments until such time as her GAP claim had been resolved. If she did not continue to make her payments, her credit could have been affected, additional interest added to her loan and/or late charges added to her loan. She would need to discuss this with her lienholder as IAS does not report to credit bureaus, and any fees added to the loan after its inception date are not covered by the GAP Contract We feel we have processed her claim according to the language of the GAP ContractTell us why here

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:THE PURPOSE OF GAP INSURANCE IS TO PAY OFF THE BALANCE AFTER A ACCIDENT NOT SURE WHERE THEY GET THESE ADJUSTMENTS FROM BUT INS PAID AND I HAD TO PAY OFF REMAINDER TO PURCHASE A NEW CAR $2,543.92TO ME THAT IS FRAUD IF GAP DOESN'T COVER THE BALANCE OF LOAN, AS THAT IS WHAT WAS PURCHASED FOR
Regards,
*** ***

As outlined in our prior response, on October 30, 2017, we received notification of a claim for a loss date of October 23, 2017. Letters were mailed to Mr*** on 10/and 11/advising of the documents needed to process his claim. Verbally, Mr*** was advised of what was needed for his claim on 10/30, 11/2, 11/6, 11/8, 11/9, 11/14, and on 11/21. The final information for his claim was received on 11/and his claim was sent for review. During the review process, we spoke to Mr*** several more times. IAS resolved his claim in days, not days as his complaint states. Our representatives talked at length with Mr*** as well as myself each time we were contacted. Unfortunately, Mr*** remains responsible for the balance of his loan as the GAP Contract does not cover the $4,300+ in late charges and missed payments. It was Mr***’s responsibility to make the loan payments according to the finance agreement he signed with his lienholder.Tell us why here

Mr*** purchased a Dealer Services Protection Plan Limited Plan from Momentum Jaguar Volvo on 07/19/for his Jaguar XF. One peril covered under the contract is the cosmetic repair of alloy wheels. He should have received a copy of the Contract from the dealership when he
purchased it.Mr*** initiated a claim with IAS on 07/14/for cosmetic damage occurring to the vehicle approximately six months prior to the left front and left rear wheels. Mr*** was advised to take his vehicle to the dealership for repairs, and to have them contact us prior to any repairs being completed for authorization or his claim would be denied. He acknowledged he understood the procedures.The reason we require pre-authorization is so the repair technician can provide independent information regarding the damages, the types of wheel, costs, etc. There are certain wheels which are excluded under the contract as well as certain conditions which are not covered. It is during the telephone call with the technician that typically it is determined if the claim meets the contract guidelines or not.On 07/16/15, Mr*** again contacted IAS and stated he had already had the work done and the vehicle had left the repair facility. It was explained to him that since his claim was not pre-authorized prior to repairs being completed, we had no choice but to deny his claim as that is a requirement of the Contract.On 07/17/15, we received an appeal letter from Mr*** indicating he did not recall being told that he needed authorization prior to repairs being completed, and wanted us to reconsider his claim for payment. A letter was sent to him explaining that authorization is required for any claim or there is no coverage. Since authorization was not obtained first, his claim would remain denied.The Contract he purchased states in six (6) different areas that pre-authorization is a requirement for any claim. We recommend Mr*** review his contract to be familiar with the terms and conditions found within.We regret he is not satisfied with our claim decision however, his claim remains denied as no pre-authorization was received for repairs which is a condition of the Contract

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

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr*** concerns. Following is our response Mr*** initiated a claim under his GAP Addendum on July 24, for an accident occurring on July 14, 2017. Letters were e-mailed to Mr*** advising of the documents
required in order to handle his claim on 07/24/17, 08/10/17, 8/16/17, 8/29/17, 9/27/17, 9/28/17, 9/30/and on 10/2/17. In addition, we had numerous phone conversations and e-mails with Mr*** regarding the documents needed for his claim as well as the status of his claim On 9/8/17, it appeared we had received all the documents for this claim and it was sent to review. During the review process, it was determined that Mr*** had purchased five aftermarket warranties when he purchased his vehicle and we had not received any documentation on those warranties, which was needed for his claim. We either needed copies of the aftermarket warranties stating they were non-cancelable/non-refundable or we needed the refund information for each warranty. In addition, the total loss documentation from the insurance company did not match. The actual cash value on the total loss evaluation did not match the actual cash value on the total loss breakdown. Therefore, we needed the correct documentation from the insurance company In an attempt to assist Mr***, we contacted his insurance company on 10/2/and left a message advising of what was needed for his claim. We received this information from the customer on this same date On 10/2/17, Mr*** wanted to know when his claim would be handled and we explained it was being reviewed again. He had concerns regarding an upcoming car payment. We explained to Mr*** that he was responsible for making his car payments, per the terms of the finance agreement he signed, until such time as his claim could be adjudicated to determine if there was a GAP deficiency owed or not. Mr*** wanted his claim to be put in front of other claims. He was advised that the claims are worked in the order they are received His claim was submitted for final adjudication on 10/without having received all the aftermarket warranty information required for the claim. Mr*** was advised that he would be notified once we had the claim results however, he was not happy with that response. We informed Mr*** that due to the recent hurricanes and flooding, there were many claims in line for review On 10/26/17, we received a settlement breakdown for Mr*** claim advising a claim payment for $6,was issued to his lienholder on 10/25/for the GAP deficiency. There was an error on the settlement breakdown which needed to be corrected regarding one of the aftermarket warranties. The correction was made and a second settlement breakdown was received on 10/30/advising a second claim payment for $was issued to his lienholder on 10/30/for additional GAP benefits We regret Mr*** was not satisfied with the length of time his claim was open however, he was responsible for submitting the documentation required to process his claim Please let me know should you have any questions or need any additional information Sincerely, *** *** *** Claims Supervisor

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Please provide where the processing fee of $was concludedalso in reviewing documentation received from *** *** I don't see any additions of $The cash value of the car on the date of loss was $13,What a coincidence that gap came up with figures and so called justification as to why they would force their customer to pay out of pocket $You all are the worst gap insurance I've EVER obtained and I will NEVER conduct or refer anyone to you all again.
Regards,
*** ***

Mr*** contract requires pre-authorization on any claim. When he called in to initiate this claim, he was given a claim number. A claim number is not an authorization number. His claim was never pre-authorized and therefore, was denied for that reason. We regret that he is not satisfied with our claims decision however, his claim remains denied as repairs were completed prior to receiving pre-authorization which is a condition of this Contract. The terms and conditions of Mr*** contract state he may cancel this Contract at any time by surrendering it to dealership where he purchased it. “If a claim has been made against the Contract or if the Contract has been in YOUR possession for more than sixty (60) days, the DEALER will make a pro-rata refund less a thirty-five dollar ($35) cancellation fee, less claims paid. This refund will be based on the elapsed time from the Contract Sale Date, and will only be provided if YOU are the original purchaser of this Contract. Refund will be sent to lienholder unless lien is satisfied, except if YOU reside in a state with specific laws regarding the cancellation of this Contract, then the specific laws of that state will apply.” Tell us why here

Ms*** purchased a Protectoin Plus Warranty (Contract) from Clear Lake Infiniti on 01/27/for her Infiniti QX80. This Contract provides a benefit for the theft of the vehicle or for the reimbursement of the insurance deductible, depending on the facts of the loss.Ms*** did
not initiate a claim under this warranty until 12/21/- over three (3) months after the date of the loss. She then filed this complaint on 12/29/- days after initiating her claim. As with any type of claim, an investigation is conducted and necessary information is obtained prior to making any payment of benefits.On her behalf, IAS obtained the required documents needed to consider her claim. Her claim has been reviewed and is in line for payment of theft benefits of $2,500. The check should be issued by Monday at the latest

Complaint* ***
I am rejecting this response because: IAS at no time informed me that there was a need for an "Authorization Number". The first representative at IAS that I spoke to gave me my claim number, and did tell me to have the technician call IAS before any work was started (which is what happened). The contract states that "prior authorization" must be obtained. That too is correct, however IAS is using language specifically designed to confuse the consumer. I called as I was supposed to, and was given a claim number. The IAS representative should have told me that the claim number does not authorize work to be done, which they did not do. I was only told that I MUST have the technician call IAS before starting any work, which I did.No where in the contract does it state that I need an "authorization number". It states I need "prior authorization". When a consumer calls to start the process and is given a "Claim Number", and told they are "all set", and told step is to have ANY SHOP, (the word the IAS rep used was "mom & pop") call before any work is completed, and given NO OTHER instructions, one would think that they have followed all steps as required.I leased my vehicle in February of 2017, the vehicle as of today (3-17-18) has 9,miles on it. I paid $for this warranty for years of coverage, and I made a claim for $270. Do the right thing, pay out the claim as you should
Regards,
*** ***

We are in receipt of Ms*** concerns regarding the claim she initiated with IAS on 03/07/17. We spoke to her spouse, *** *** earlier today and have authorized the repairs to her vehicle. We regret there were any delays in her claim being reviewed for authorization
Tell us why here

**. [redacted] purchased a Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles on 04/10/12 from Chevrolet Cadillac of Turnersvillle on his 2008 Cadillac Escalade.  The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard.**. [redacted] initiated a claim...

with IAS on 7/15/15 for damages to his tire (left front) and wheels (left front, left rear and right front) due to hitting apothole(s).  We requested and received photographs of the damaged areas for our review.Based on our review of the damages, it appeared the majority of the damages were a result of curb damage which is not covered under this contract.  We dispatched an independent appraiser to go to the repair facility and inspect the damages and provide us with a report of same.According to the independent appraiser, (1) the left front tire had a pinch cut from a side scrape – impact was not showing cords and still held air, (2) the left front wheel’s outer lip was broken off – consistent with curb damage and still held air, (3) the right front tire had no damage, (4) the right front wheel’souter lip was severely bent and folded over from a pot hole impact,  (5) the left rear tire had no damage, (6) the left rear outer wheel lip was visibly cracked – consistent with curb damage and still held air, (7) the right rear tire had no damage, and the (8) the right rear wheel had curb rash and still held air.Note:  In February 2015, **. [redacted] made a claim for damages to the right front tire resulting from curb damages.  Because curb damage is not covered under his contract his claim was denied.  During the current claim we are discussing in this complaint, we requested proof from **. [redacted] showing that the damage from the February 2015 claim had been replaced.  He informed us that he bought a tire with cash from a neighborhood shop and could not provide a receipt for same.  Since this damage was previously denied under a previous claim, it is not eligible for consideration in future claims untilwe are provided with proof of its replacement.The contract states “Wheels are eligible for replacement only if the damages from a ROAD HAZARD will not allow the tire to seal or the wheel is unsafe for use.”The contract also states cosmetic damage, sidewall damage, and damage caused by impact with a curb are non-covered damages.The only damaged area falling within the scope of **. [redacted]’ contract was the damage to the right front wheel.  Therefore, his claim was authorized for thereplacement of the right front wheel.  Partial payment of these repairs was made on 7/27/15 for $550.00, and an additional payment was issued today for $26.50 after the final invoice was received.**. [redacted] will need to provide copies of any invoices/receipts for the damaged areas not covered under his claims in order for any future damage to these same areas to be considered.We regret **. [redacted] is not satisfied with our claim decision.  However, we feel we have paid for the damages covered under this contract.

Ms. [redacted] purchased a ROAD InTire Vehicle Tire and Wheel Guarantee from Mastria Mazda on 05/18/17 for her 2012 Nissan Maxima.  The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover tire and wheel damages resulting from a road hazard.   Ms. [redacted] initiated a claim with IAS on 10/09/17 for...

slow leaks to all four tires.  She indicated two tires had pre-existing damages but could not remember which two tires.  The other two tires had slow leaks with no visible damage.  The claim procedures were explained to her and she was advised to have the repair technician contact us prior to repairs so the repairs could be authorized.   It appears the repair technician contacted IAS on 12/14/17 regarding the damages to the tires however, the repairs were completed on 12/13/17 prior to the claim being authorized.  The claim was denied as no pre-authorization had been received for the work.   The reason we require pre-authorization is so the repair technician can provide independent information regarding the damages, the type of wheel, costs, etc.  There are certain wheels which are excluded under the contract as well as how the damage occurred.  It is during the telephone call with the technician that typically it is determined if the claim meets the contract guidelines or not.  Pre-existing damages are excluded under this Contract.   On 12/15/17, Ms. [redacted] called IAS upset because her claim had been denied.  The representatives explained to Ms. [redacted] that repairs had been completed without the claim being authorized therefore, her claim was denied.  She was also advised that until proof was received that all four tires had been replaced, the warranty would be blocked for review of future claims.   Ms. [redacted] submitted an appeal letter for her claim asking that her damages be covered.  Included with her appeal letter was an invoice dated 10/9/17 stating one tire had been repaired due to a leak being found.  The second invoice was dated 12/13/17 (prior to the technician contacting IAS) indicating two tires were replaced as she had backed over wood in a parking lot.  Ms. [redacted] was notified that her claim would remain denied as no pre-authorization had been received for the repairs.   The contract she purchased states in nine (9) different areas that pre-authorization is a requirement for any claim.  We recommend Ms. [redacted] review her contract to be familiar with the terms and conditions found within.   IAS has received proof that two of the vehicle’s tires have been replaced.  Upon proof of the other two tires being replaced, her Contract will be unblocked for any future claims she may present.   The terms and conditions of her Contract also state:   “Section 8. Your Right to Cancel YOU may cancel this Contract at any time by surrendering it to the Dealer…along with a written request for cancellation…If a claim has been made against the Contract or if the Contract has been in YOUR possession for more than sixty (6) days, the Dealer will make a pro-rata refund less a fifty-dollar ($50) cancellation fee, less any claims paid.  This refund will be based on the elapsed time from the Contract Sale Date, and will only be provided if YOU are the original purchaser of this Contract.”   If Ms. [redacted] still wishes to cancel her contract, she will need to follow the above procedures as outlined in her Contract.   We regret she is not satisfied with our claim decision however, her claim remains denied as no pre-authorization was received for repairs which is one of the terms and conditions of this Contract. Tell us why here...

On October 30, 2017, we received notification of a claim for a loss date of October 23, 2017.  Letters were mailed to Mr. [redacted] on 10/30 and 11/21 advising of the documents needed to process his claim.  Verbally, Mr. [redacted] was advised of what was needed for his claim on 10/30, 11/2, 11/6,...

11/8, 11/9, 11/14, and on 11/21.  The final information for his claim was received on 11/21 and his claim was sent for review.  During the review process, we spoke to Mr. [redacted] several more times.   IAS resolved his claim in 42 days, not 90 days as his complaint states.   The Contract is designed to waive the difference between the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle involved in the total loss and the outstanding balance still owed on that vehicle from the purchaser to the lender, when a total loss occurs, per the terms and conditions of the Contract.   The Contract does not agree to cover any deductions made by the primary insurance company.  “Actual Cash Value means the retail value of the Covered Collateral on the Date of Loss, prior to its physical damage or theft, as determined by the Primary Insurance carrier (including tax, title and license), less the Primary Insurance deductible amount, where permitted by law.  (NOTE:  This GAP Waiver Addendum does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage.”  The insurance company deducted a total of $230.00 for the condition of the vehicle.  Therefore, this deduction was also considered in the GAP benefits.   The Contract does not agree to cover “…late charges, Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…”  The payment history we received from his lienholder showed numerous late charges (48) and extensions (8).  According to the lienholder, the balance of the loan on the date of loss was $6,850.89.  If all payments had been made according to the terms of the finance agreement Mr. [redacted] signed, the balance of the loan at the time of the loss should have been approximately $2,590.77, which is less than the insurance settlement amount.  Due to the late charges and extensions, we used an amortized payoff in our claim calculations on Mr. [redacted] claim.  NOTE:  The GAP Contract allows for a late payment up to 30 days so we allowed an extra payment on the payoff we used.   Our specific GAP Benefit Calculations were as follows:               Gross Unpaid Balance                       =                      $ 2,930.99                     Less Condition Adjustments              =                      $    230.00             Less ACV (insurance check)              =                      $ 2,835.55             No GAP Deficiency Owed                  =                      $ (-134.56)     Mr. [redacted] claim was denied on December 12, 2017 as there was not a GAP deficiency owed per the terms and conditions of the GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum he purchased.   Any remaining balance on Mr. [redacted] loan is attributable to any late charges, extensions, condition adjustments, late charges assessed since the date of this loss, and any additional interest added to his loan since the date of this loss.  Mr. [redacted] remains responsible for those fees as they are not covered by the Contract.   I talked at length with Mr. [redacted] about his claim.  He was aware of what was found on his payment history but stated ‘life happens’ and felt the loan balance should still be covered by his GAP Contract.  Mr. [redacted] has since cancelled the GAP Contract so that the pro-rated refund could be sent to his lienholder and applied to his loan balance.   We regret Mr. [redacted] feels there were any delays during the handling of his GAP claim and does not agree with our claim decision.  We believe we have processed the claim according to the language of the waiver.

We are in receipt of Ms. [redacted] rejection of our reply to her complaint.  She purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum, not an insurance policy as she refers to in her complaints. The front of her GAP Contract (see attached) states:   “WARNING:  THIS CONTRACT IS NOT AN INSURANCE POLICY, DOES NOT PROVIDE PROPERTY DAMAGE, LIABILITY OR COLLISION INSURANCE, AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW OR ANY OTHER LAW MANDATING MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COVERAGE.”   The back page of her GAP Contract states:   The Contract states “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of the Date of Loss.  This amount shall not include any and all…future interest…finance charges, late charges, Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…”   Attached please find a copy of Ms. [redacted] payment history from [redacted]  According to the finance agreement she signed, she financed $19,663.03.  The lienholder added a $199 finance fee to the beginning of the loan balance.  The first line shows the amount she financed and the second line shows the additional $199 added to her loan for finance fees.  In addition, the payment history shows the two extensions which were not covered in the GAP claim.   As previously stated in our prior response, per the terms and conditions of the GAP Contract, “Actual Cash Value means the retail value of the Covered Collateral on the Date of Loss, prior to its physical damage or theft, as determined by the Primary Insurance carrier (including tax, title and license), less the Primary Insurance deductible amount, where permitted by law.  (NOTE:  This GAP Waiver Addendum does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage.)”   According to the total loss evaluation received from [redacted] there was a conditional adjustment of $70 for minor damage to the exterior trim of the vehicle.  Therefore, this deduction was also included in the GAP claim calculations.  Attached please find a copy of the insurance company’s total loss evaluation.  The first line entry on page 3 shows a $70 deduction for minor damage to the exterior trim.  If Ms. [redacted] disputes this deduction, she would need to contact [redacted].  Should they change their position and remove the deduction, we would need revised total loss documents as well as proof of any supplemental insurance checks they issue for changes.   The attached documentation supports our claim handling.  Again, any remaining balance on her loan is attributable to the finance charge added to the loan after its inception, the conditional adjustment, the two extensions, any late charges that have been added to the loan since the date of loss, and any additional interest added to the loan since the date of loss.  Ms. [redacted] remains responsible for any of these fees as they are not covered by the GAP Contract. Tell us why here...

I will be seeking a refund of the cancelled contract from the dealership.
Regards,
[redacted]

Mr. [redacted] purchased a ROAD InTire Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles.  The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard.   Mr. [redacted] initiated a claim with IAS on 02/21/18 for damages to the left front tire...

as a result of hitting a pothole.  During that phone call, he was advised to take his vehicle to a repair facility, and to have them contact IAS prior to any repairs for pre-authorization or his claim would be denied.  A claim number was given to him but a claim number is not an authorization number.   The reason we require pre-authorization is so the repair technician can provide independent information regarding the damages, the type of wheel, costs, etc.  There are certain wheels which are excluded under the contract as well as how the damage occurred.  It is during the telephone call with the technician that typically it is determined if the claim meets the contract guidelines or not.   The next day IAS received a call from a technician at [redacted] asking about how we bill for repairs. He was advised that since the customer did not go to the dealership, IAS would be unable to pay [redacted] directly and that the customer would need to request reimbursement for the repairs.  The technician stated he would get the damages looked at to determine what the damages were.   On 2/26/18, the customer called in asking for a fax number to send the invoice to.  He was advised that a claim determination could not be determined until the invoice was received.  Since the claim had not been pre-authorized, the representative needed to determine if the work was completed during work hours or after work hours.   The invoice was received on 2/27/18 and was reviewed on 2/28/18.  The invoice indicated the vehicle went into the repair facility on 2/22/18 at 2:31 pm and the invoice was closed out on 2/24/18 at 2:19 pm.  The vehicle was at the repair facility for two days however, IAS was never contacted again about the damage assessment in order to receive pre-authorization.  This claim was denied as no pre-authorization was received for the repairs.  A denial letter was mailed to the customer that same day.   The Contract Mr. [redacted] purchased states in at least nine (9) areas that he must receive pre-authorization for his claim.   “You must receive prior authorization from the Claims Center before any repair or replacement has begun:  [redacted]   Section 5. Contract Exclusions states “2. Any repairs or replacements not authorized by Administrator.”   Section 6. YOUR Responsibilities “It is YOUR responsibility to ensure that the technician has obtained an authorization number for any repairs prior to any work being completed on YOUR VEHICLE.”   Section 9. How to File a Claim also states to call IAS “…for authorization prior to any repairs or replacements.”   Mr. [redacted] believes his claim number was the pre-authorization number for his claim however, that was just his claim number it was not an authorization number.  He did not receive pre-authorization for the work to be completed on his vehicle, and that is why this claim was denied.   The underwriters of the warranty carried require that work be authorized by IAS prior to the work being completed.  If authorization is not obtained before repairs are completed, there is no coverage.   We regret that he is not satisfied with our claims decision however, his claim remains denied as repairs were completed prior to receiving pre-authorization which is a condition of this Contract. Tell us why here...

[redacted] purchased a Protection Plus Warranty from Oregon Auto Center on March 27, 2015 providing protection for the 2011 Infiniti M37 she purchased.   Mr. [redacted] states in his complaint that the warranty guarantees a $3,000 benefit paid directly to the customer.   The terms and...

conditions of the warranty state:   “In the event the System fails and the described vehicle is stolen and not recovered within thirty (30) days or is RECOVERED and declared a Total Loss as a result of the theft, benefits number 1 and 2 listed below will apply:  (1) $3,000 Benefit paid directly to the Registered Owner/Lessee, Plus (2) $2,000 Replacement Allowance from the Original Selling Dealer towards the purchase of a replacement vehicle within 120 days of the Date of Loss or the benefit will become null and void.”   “Alternatively, if the vehicle is stolen and RECOVERED within thirty (30) days said Registered Owner/Lessee will be reimbursed the comprehensive amount deducted by the Insurance Company in their settlement with respect to the deductible up to $1,000.”   A loss can only fall into one of the three categories listed above.   According to the Redding Police Department’s theft report, the [redacted]’s vehicle was stolen on 4/20/17.  According to the California Highway Patrol’s recovery report, this vehicle was recovered on 5/20/17.  This vehicle was recovered 30 days after it was reported stolen.   Since the vehicle was recovered within thirty (30) days, IAS obtained the repair estimate from GEICO that was written when the vehicle was inspected after being recovered.  The total repair estimate was for $2,692.51 with very minimal damages.   It is unclear as to why the insurance company settled the claim as an unrecovered theft, or a total loss, when the damages documented on the vehicle were minimal and did not deem the vehicle a total loss.  However, they settled their claim based on the contract they had with the customer.  IAS, as such, settled the claim with the customer based on our Contract language.   “…the described vehicle is stolen and not recovered within thirty (30) days…”  This clause does not apply because the vehicle was recovered within thirty (30) days.“…or is RECOVERED and declared a Total Loss as a result of the theft…”  This clause does not apply because the damages did not deem the vehicle a total loss.“…if the vehicle is stolen and RECOVERED within thirty (30) days…”  This clause applies because the vehicle was recovered within thirty (30) days.  Therefore, the Contract provides reimbursement to the customer for their insurance deductible up to $1,000. According to the insurance documents received from GEICO, Ms. [redacted] had a $100 comprehensive deductible.  IAS issued a claim payment of $100.00 as reimbursement for their deductible, payable to [redacted], on August 14, 2017. Mr. [redacted] is seeking a $3,000 theft benefit, but the claim does not meet those terms of the Contract, or a refund.  The terms and conditions of the Contract also state “The Vehicle Security Anti-Theft System is permanently installed on the Covered Vehicle, therefore this warranty is NON-CANCELABLE AND NON-REFUNDABLE.”  We are unable to provide Mr. [redacted] with a refund as claim benefits have been paid out as well as the Contract is non-cancelable/non-refundable. We regret Mr. [redacted] is not satisfied with our claim decision however, we believe we have processed the claim based on the terms and conditions of his Contract. Tell us why here...

On 04/23/08, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the left rear wheel for curb damage.  The wheel was repaired.  Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $150.00 on 06/05/08.On 05/07/08, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the left front tire.  The tire was replaced.  Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $357.58 on 05/30/08.On 05/28/09, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the right rear tire.  The tire was repaired.  Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $37.52 on 05/29/09.