Request for Arbitration I have attached the following for your use:Revdex.com Dispute FormMotor Home Service Contract (relevant parts)Motorhome Service Contract ApplicationLetter to Choice “Request For Reimbursement or Arbitration”Repair facility cost to repair slide topper (item #2)Repair Facility cost to repair Rear slide (item #1)Estimate of slide body repair (item #1)Dimension rejection letterPage from order catalog Picture of damaged slide topper Picture of center Brace RollerMy basic arguments are stated in attachment 4, which is a letter to Choice describing my objections to their denial of paymentI specifically purchased in attachment items #27(Slide out system), #(Non-covered part cause of loss), #(Covered Part Cause of Loss), and #(Seals and Gaskets).Dimensions rejection letter (Attachment 8; paragraph “Slide Topper”) justifies the rejection because the center brace roller (Attachment 11) came loose due to its screws backing outThey claim that since fasteners are listed in the not covered portion of the contract, the claim was rejectedHowever, as stated above I purchased the “Optional Non-Covered Part cause of Loss”This should have covered the damage to the covered mechanical slide topperIn addition, the screws are part of the topper roller and are thus part of a covered itemSo either way the claim should not have been rejected.The rear slide out repair (attachment 6) is covered under the contract in optional coverage #“Slide out systems”This slide is operated by an electric motor and has no cablesThey appear to be confusing the bed slide with the other rear slide which is operated with a cable systemI had the cable system repaired, per their suggestion, at the repair facility that had recently worked on that slideThe seal repair for the bed slide is covered under optional coverage #(seals and gaskets)I have attached a page from the manufactures catalog (attachment 9) which shows it as a sealIn previous negotiations with dimension they paid for the replacement of seals.The cancellation of my contract (attachment 8) under the section “INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION” is also disputedAs part of the repair, I was unable to stay in my RV for a number of daysUnder the contract “Trip Interruption” in the event of a breakdown over miles from my residence (I was over miles away), I am authorized up to three days motel and meals for a maximum of $I stayed at a private residence and paid for room and boardI needed a receipt for the lodging and they provided one under the heading of bed and breakfastI submitted a copy of this receiptSince they were a private residence, my contract was canceled for misrepresentationI could have accepted the non-payment because it was not a motel (as stated in the contract) but not unilaterally canceling my warrantyI paid for lodging and assumed the term motel was genericThere was no misrepresentation and when they contacted me I told them it was a private residence.I believe Dimension is looking for any excuse to cancel the contract because of the expense they have incurredIn attachment 8, they reference the cost of the contract being $26,I think this is the reason for their actionsIn a previous negotiations, they offered to settle if I would agree to canceling the contractI refused, and the very next claim they used a fictitious reason to accomplish their desire to save the cost of further potential claims
Dimension Service Corporation (DSC) is responsible for the servicing needs of Mr [redacted] ’s service contract (EF00069***) sold under a program called Performance First His contract’s obligor is Autoguard Advantage Corporation (AAC) that is primarily liable to pay for any covered repairs whose obligations are insured in the event it does not timely pay eligible claimsAAC has contracted with DSC to fulfill AAC’s servicing duties as the administrator of the program This letter is in response to your inquiry dated January 28, directed to DSC’s parent who requested I review the facts reported for his claim (M15-13196) and the terms, conditions and limitations of his contract to determine if a proper adjustment of the claim was made and his request for cancellation of the contract honoredSince DSC almost exclusively conducts its business via phone conversations with repair facilities and contract holders, it has established procedures to immediately capture the contents of each conversation in order to (1) assure the most accurate data possible from each conversation is preserved and (2) allow any of its examiners to quickly respond to the continuing segments of a claim by easily referencing the data DSC’s data procedure is noted due to some of the entries being quoted in this response The claim was reported to DSC by the repair facility on December 8, at 2:PM At that time DSC immediately requested specific auto claim data, a diagnosis for the repairs and the facts of the claim to determine if coverage was available Since no information was available at that time, DSC called the claim facility on December 11, 20-at 2:PM for an update It was then suggested that DSC contact “Daniel” (408-561-1598) who replied that he was on vacation and would call with the repair estimates and requested information the following week DSC finally heard from the repair facility on December 22, at 3:PM with their findings that resulted in requesting Mr [redacted] to authorize a tear down of his vehicle’s engine to determine what had actually caused the repairs When claims are submitted requesting authorization for repairs to a vehicle’s engine, its DSC’s procedure, as permitted by the terms of Mr [redacted] ’s service contract, to assign an Independent Inspector to review the findings and recommendations of the repair facility The Inspector comes on site and completes an inspection of the torn down unit to determine the causation of any failed parts This procedure allows DSC to have an extra set of “eyes” render an Inspection Report containing the details to include photos of the cause of damage DSC has also found the inspection procedure acts as a deterrent for repair facilities requesting unnecessary or improper repairs The Report’s findings are then applied to the facts of the claim and contents of the service contract to determine if coverage is available for the claim DSC’s procedure and decision to order an inspection was confirmed during its conversation with the repair facility on January 6, when they stated that the repair’s cause of failure and extent of damages were still not known The Independent Inspection took place on January 8, that resulted in the Cause of Failure being reported due to “continued operation while low on coolant causing warping of the cylinder head, coolant loss due to leaking thermostat housing” Since only the thermostat housing (not the thermostat itself) was not a part listed for coverage in the contract, there were no benefits available In order for benefits to be triggered under Mr [redacted] ’s service contract, section IDEFINITONS, the item that references the word Breakdown must first be satisfied Breakdown means failure of a covered Mechanical or Electrical part under service Service contract forms are known in the insurance industry as named peril contracts meaning that unless the part or component are named in one of the listed coverage, there are no benefits available Since the Inspection Report also stated the cause of failure was due to the continued operation while low on coolant, DSC reviewed contract Section VWHAT IS NOT COVERED, item Ethat states that there is coverage for losses that, among other items, includes any Breakdown for caused by the failure to maintain proper levels of coolant and not protecting your vehicle from further damage when a Breakdown occurs in order to buttress its decision of the claim’s denial Due to the Inspection Report findings constituting sufficient DSC’s grounds for the denial of this loss, DSC didn’t proceed to request copies of Mr [redacted] ’s maintenance records that may have contained additional bases for the claim’s denialRegarding Mr [redacted] ’s request to cancel his contract, please note DSC’s attached email that was sent to him yesterday that contained the required form to complete his request It is DSC’s opinion after carefully reviewing the service contract’s terms, conditions and limitations as they are applied to the reported facts in this matter and also the contents of the referenced inspector’s report, that there would be no coverage afforded for Mr [redacted] ’s claim This opinion is based upon the current information contained in DSC’s records and this inquiry and in no way will set precedence for the handling of future claims Therefore, it is given with a full reservation of rights that might be available under the service contract and applicable law to change at a later date This letter is also written pursuant to Rule of the appropriate rules of evidence in an attempt to resolve a disputed matter and therefore is not admissible If there are additional facts that might cause DSC to change its opinion, please forward immediately for our review and further consideration
National Administrative Service CoLLC (NASC) is responsible for conducting the servicing needs of Mr [redacted] ’s cited contract under a service contract program called Performance Care RV His contract’s obligor is Autoguard Advantage Corporation (AAC) that is primarily liable to pay for any covered repairs whose obligations are insured in the event it does not timely pay eligible claimsAAC has contracted with NASC to fulfill AAC’s servicing duties as the administrator of the program This letter is in response to the recent complaint initiated by [redacted] that involves the contractual requirements that must first be fulfilled to transfer of Mr [redacted] ’s service contract to him NASC’s records note that on December 17, at 10:AM, a call was received from Mr [redacted] questioning the necessity of the documentation required by the terms of the contract to transfer the Mr [redacted] ’s cited service contract to him NASC’s records further disclose the transfer of the contract has not been made due to the inability of parties to provide copies of the travel trailer’s maintenance records The manufacturer’s maintenance requirements applicable to Mr [redacted] ’s model travel trailer call for at a minimum for at least four annual receipts to be presented to NASC from a qualified service technician that has inspected the unit’s refrigerator’s connections, the contract system, gas pressure and flue baffle Additionally, dependent upon where the unit is actually stored, there are a number of winterization requirements for any plumbing fixtures and items such as toilets, sinks, tubs, black, gray and fresh water tanks that must be observed by the parties and documented to NASC Mr [redacted] ’s contract section VGENERAL PROVISIONS, item DTranferability, requires the original service Contract Holder within days of the change of ownership to submit to NASC (1) the Original service Contract Application, (2) a letter requesting the transfer signed by Messrs [redacted] and [redacted] listing the date of transfer and the odometer mileage, (3) a $transfer fee payable to NASC, and (4) copies of the vehicle’s maintenance records Regarding the final item, the contract’s section goes on to state that copies of the maintenance records and original receipts must include evidence that the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance work had been performed If the requirements are not met, NASC has the right to deny the transfer of the contract If Messrs [redacted] or [redacted] can provide evidence (copies of the front and back of their negotiated check that were made payable to NASC), their check was cashed by NASC, it will immediately refund the $fee to the applicable party
We have received the referenced complaint and are taking the steps necessary to resolve the issue with the complainant.Thank you.Dimension Service Corporation
Good afternoon,Ms*** *** made a claim on her vehicle service contract, claim number L17-51236, on November 16, Ms***s service contract was a covered component contractOnly components specifically listed in her contract are covered for repairNot all vehicle service
contracts are of this type, but the contract Ms*** purchased isFurther, Ms***s vehicle is a "high mileage" vehicle and coverage options diminish as a vehicle enters the high mileage phase of its operation.Her check engine light had come on and she went to Mercedes Benz of South Atlanta to get it check outThe diagnosis that resulted from the third party inspection report was that the cause of the check engine light was a material failure of the balance shaft and a material failure of the intake manifold tumble flap.The components covered under Ms***s contract are set forth in Article II, Schedule of Coverages, Covered Components, (A) EngineThis subsection very clearly stats with the qualifying clause, "The following parts only are covered:"Neither the balance shaft, nor the intake manifold tumble flap are listed in the parts covered.Thus, while Ms*** may be upset, her contract clearly does not cover the parts causing the failure of her engine and the denial of coverage was appropriate in this instance
We are concerned that Ms*** states that she has had a bad experience with are customer support staff and that is being addressed internally.As to the processing of Ms*** claim, it was handled in a very standard manner, as will be described herein.We received notice of the claim
on Thursday April 6, from the repair facility, this started the claim processWe spoke with Ms*** on Friday April 7, and explained the process to her while gathering some additional information from her with which to continue processing the claimThere are an intervening two days comprising he weekend of April and 9, 2017.We had additional contact with the repair facility the following week regarding completion of the diagnosis of the issues claimed by Ms*** and on Wednesday April 12, 2017, the repair shop stated that the vehicle was ready for inspectionNote that we have no control over the timing of the repair shop to complete their independent diagnosis of the items contained in any claim and that some of the delay cited by Ms*** was due to time it took for the repair shop to complete its diagnosis and parts list and authorize inspection.Two days after receiving completion of the diagnosis and clearance for inspection of Ms*** RV, we sent an inspector to the location as is required under the contract on Friday April 14, The claim was authorized on the same day that we received the inspector's reports, Friday April 14, MsField's claim was authorized for $3,in repairs. A week's time from claim notification through claim authorization is fairly typical for an RV repair.We are again concerned that it took the repair facility selected by Ms*** an additional six days, to April 20, to begin the repair work on the vehicle, but, that is outside our ability to controlOf course, the time it took to repair the vehicle is also solely under the control of the repair shop and not in any way something that we can control or influence.While we apologize for Ms*** impression as not receiving the type of customer service our contract holders generally receive, we will note that our records indicate her claim was processed and authorized in approximately one week, even considering the delay we faced in the completed of the diagnosis and inspection approval from the repair shopWe must also note that MsFiled claim was approved for $3,793.19.Brian DB***
Allegiance Administrators, LLC (AAL) is responsible for conducting the servicing needs of Ms***’s cited contract under a service contract program called Millennium Automotive Protective Program Her contract’s obligor is Autoguard Advantage Corporation (AAC) that is primarily liable to pay
for any covered repairs whose obligations are insured in the event it does not timely pay eligible claimsAAC has contracted with AAL to fulfill AAC’s servicing duties as the administrator of the program This letter is in response to your recent inquiry to AAL who requested I review her claim (C16-18086) and the terms, conditions and limitations of her contract to determine if a proper adjustment of the claim was made. The gist of Ms***’s complaint involves AAL’s decision to use “like kind, like quality” replacement parts that meet the manufacturer’s specifications When her claim was determined to require the replacement her vehicle’s steering angle sensor, AAL’s claim representative reviewed her contract’s section IDEFINITION, item Covered Part(s), that defined those parts being “like replacement part meeting the manufacturer’s specification” Additional language supporting AAL’s contractual right to use “like kind, like quality” parts was found in the Breakdown Coverage wordings that state, “Reimbursement amounts for replacement parts or components may be based on new, non-OEM, remanufactured or used parts at Our (AAL’s) sole discretion”.When “after market” parts first made their entrance into the auto parts marketplace over forty years ago, auto manufacturers were quick to criticize their usage due to the threat of loosing their monopolies on their higher priced parts Studies of the structural integrities of after market parts have since shown them to be equal to and in some instances superior to the auto manufacturers’ parts As a result, an insurers’ option to utilize after market parts in lieu of auto manufacturer parts are now routinely approved by state insurance department for parts replacement in insurance contracts Their usages are also allowed due to the fact almost all auto policies are priced actuarially to only place an insured in the same position as before the loss; not in a place of betterment that would result if new OEM parts were to be installed on a used vehicle In this instance Ms*** was given the option to pay the difference in price between the two types of parts but failed to do so AAL therefore paid to conclude her claim $for the sensor, $for an alignment and $for car rental or a total of $1,044.72. It is AAL’s opinion after carefully reviewing the cited service contract’s terms, conditions and limitations as they are applied to the reported facts in this matter that Ms***’s claim was paid in accordance with the terms of her contract and industry standards This opinion is based upon the current information contained in AAL’s records and this inquiry and in no way will set precedence for the handling of future claims Therefore, it is given with a full reservation of rights that might be available under the service contract and applicable law to change at a later date This letter is also written pursuant to Rule of the appropriate rules of evidence in an attempt to resolve a disputed matter and therefore is not admissible If there are additional facts that might cause AAL to change its opinion, please forward immediately for our consideration
The consumer's deposit in the amount of $was charged back to his credit card on March 30, 2016. Please see the attached document showing proof.Thank you.Lori
Good afternoon,After some internal investigation as to Ms*** complaint, we cannot find her in our systemWe were not actively selling service contracts in Wisconsin at the time of her purchase, so, it is possible that she may have directed this complaint to the wrong
company. We will be happy to search further, however, we will need some additional information from Ms***: We will need the contract numberThat should be easy to find as it is listed directly on the contract itselfWe need the Vehicle Identification Number from her vehicleWe need to make certain the contract was purchased under her name exactly as it is now shown - Kristina M***. If Ms*** can supply these pieces of information, we will search further and then respond once more. Thank you. Brian DB***General Counsel
Please note that our offices are not lo**ted in *** *** **Our offices have been located in the
Columbus metropolitan area of Ohio for more than years
In an effort to resolve this matter, please complete the attached **ncellation form and send to us with a
copy of your Contract along with any other documents specified in your booklet under the **ncellation
sectionOur mailing address is:
Allegiance Administrators
Frantz Road
Suite
Dublin, Ohio
Best regards,
Compliance Department Attached is our response to Ms. ***
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because: The first complaint with the ac not working and the reason they didn't cover it should have been questioned by themMy vehicle ac and lines are aluminum, they do not rustWhen we heard what the original shop did, which was different than what they sent to the warranty company, we were told they heated up the lines because they wouldn't disconnectWe took it to another shop for the repairsI am not a mechanic and I know aluminum does not rust, I also know you never heat up aluminum ac linesI got lucky they didn't blow up my truckThe dealer no longer uses them either.The second problem I have is when the brakes first started to act up I was out of townI called them when the shop told me what was wrong and asked what I needed to doI was told they don't cover it and he hung upI was and a half hrs from homeThe shop couldn't get the parts in and we had to get homeI was left no choice but to drive my vehicle homeMy and a half hr drive took almost hrs because we babied it and took lots of breaks to make sure the brakes would hold. I took it in the next day for the shop to call me and tell me again the warranty wasn't covering itI will copy everything I have because I paid extra for gaskets and seals tooThey shouldn't have deducted anything at all because they never paid anythingIt sure didn't give me piece of mindEight now its more of angry and frustrated with constantly being taken advantage of or ripped off. I will have copies of everything sent out to you by Monday Sept12,
I am rejecting this response because: The mechanic disputed the result by the inspector. He said he has never had a problem with other warranty companies with the same damage. The warranty states that " ALL INTERNAL PARTS '' are covered. This is the second time I have been denied a claim. If the company doesn't want to back their warranty they should have to pay back the money for my contract.
In response to the aforementioned complaint filed by our contract holder, [redacted] relating to a claim filed on his behalf by [redacted] Toyota on October 26, 2016, I have responded directly to [redacted]. Enclosed you will find my response along with a specimen copy of his vehicle...
service contract, associated with our Car Guard Basic vehicle service contract. If you require any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me, I have also included my business card with my contact information. Sincerely, Kenny H[redacted]Vice President Enclosures
I am rejecting this response because I feel I need to say a few things about incident. First of all, there was obviously a communication problem with the claims adjuster and the repair facility. Your claims adjuster had such an attitude with my repair facility, he called me and said he wasn't going to work with him. I called Wholesale Warranty, the company I purchased the contract through, on 4/7/17 after the unacceptable conversation I had with him and what the repair facility stated. She called your company and spoke to the claims adjuster and supposedly worked it out for them to work together. Im sure their conversation is documented. This was the beginning of a bad experience. On Mon. 4/10/17 I contacted the repair facility about the claim, they had not heard from you. Just to be sure, I called your company on 4/10, he would not return my call. I called the manager over him. No call from him either. On 4/11, 4/12, called and asked about my claim. No response from anyone. Called my repair facility, they had not heard anything. So at this point I am confused as to what you said of who was the person holding up the claim. The repair facility was not getting responses, and neither was I . I was then notified on 4/12, by the claims adjuster that someone was coming to look over the repair work. So we waited 2 more days, and on 4/14/17, someone looked at our repairs on your behalf. I was not told until 4/17/17 that it had been authorized for repairs. This is where I am coming up with 12 days. Therefore, because it took this amount of time to get approval, the repair facility could not get us in until 3 days later, not a week later. This whole incident happened because your claims adjuster was rude, arrogant and unprofessional to me and obviously to my repair facility. Its is obvious no one is going to address the issue of his arrogant attitude, except to say due to privacy issues, it cannot be discussed what was done, if anything. I feel like the claims adjuster did not want to expedite my claim after my conversation with him on the phone, he did not want to work with the repair facility since he stated to me on the phone the he didn't know what he was doing! Those were his words. This is why we feel that our claim was not handled the way it should have been. I have had a few claims with your company, and they were handled in a few days with no problems. Also, you state you paid $3793.19 on this claim for us. You failed to state that we paid out of pocket $2690.85 for parts and labor not covered by our policy with you.We have the ELITE POLICY, which we thought would cover most expenses. Also we paid $240 for campground fees for the 12 days waiting for authorization. It would just be nice to know that you acknowledge his unacceptable behavior and negligence in getting my claim done in a reasonable amount of time.
Attached is Allegiance's signed Agreement to Arbitrate with MrBrown and items that required further clarification
Request for Arbitration I have attached the following for your use:Revdex.com Dispute FormMotor Home Service Contract (relevant parts)Motorhome Service Contract ApplicationLetter to Choice “Request For Reimbursement or Arbitration”Repair facility cost to repair slide topper (item #2)Repair Facility cost to repair Rear slide (item #1)Estimate of slide body repair (item #1)Dimension rejection letterPage from order catalog Picture of damaged slide topper Picture of center Brace RollerMy basic arguments are stated in attachment 4, which is a letter to Choice describing my objections to their denial of paymentI specifically purchased in attachment items #27(Slide out system), #(Non-covered part cause of loss), #(Covered Part Cause of Loss), and #(Seals and Gaskets).Dimensions rejection letter (Attachment 8; paragraph “Slide Topper”) justifies the rejection because the center brace roller (Attachment 11) came loose due to its screws backing outThey claim that since fasteners are listed in the not covered portion of the contract, the claim was rejectedHowever, as stated above I purchased the “Optional Non-Covered Part cause of Loss”This should have covered the damage to the covered mechanical slide topperIn addition, the screws are part of the topper roller and are thus part of a covered itemSo either way the claim should not have been rejected.The rear slide out repair (attachment 6) is covered under the contract in optional coverage #“Slide out systems”This slide is operated by an electric motor and has no cablesThey appear to be confusing the bed slide with the other rear slide which is operated with a cable systemI had the cable system repaired, per their suggestion, at the repair facility that had recently worked on that slideThe seal repair for the bed slide is covered under optional coverage #(seals and gaskets)I have attached a page from the manufactures catalog (attachment 9) which shows it as a sealIn previous negotiations with dimension they paid for the replacement of seals.The cancellation of my contract (attachment 8) under the section “INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION” is also disputedAs part of the repair, I was unable to stay in my RV for a number of daysUnder the contract “Trip Interruption” in the event of a breakdown over miles from my residence (I was over miles away), I am authorized up to three days motel and meals for a maximum of $I stayed at a private residence and paid for room and boardI needed a receipt for the lodging and they provided one under the heading of bed and breakfastI submitted a copy of this receiptSince they were a private residence, my contract was canceled for misrepresentationI could have accepted the non-payment because it was not a motel (as stated in the contract) but not unilaterally canceling my warrantyI paid for lodging and assumed the term motel was genericThere was no misrepresentation and when they contacted me I told them it was a private residence.I believe Dimension is looking for any excuse to cancel the contract because of the expense they have incurredIn attachment 8, they reference the cost of the contract being $26,I think this is the reason for their actionsIn a previous negotiations, they offered to settle if I would agree to canceling the contractI refused, and the very next claim they used a fictitious reason to accomplish their desire to save the cost of further potential claims
I reviewed the response made by the business and find the resolution is satisfactory to me
Dimension Service Corporation (DSC) is responsible for the servicing needs of Mr [redacted] ’s service contract (EF00069***) sold under a program called Performance First His contract’s obligor is Autoguard Advantage Corporation (AAC) that is primarily liable to pay for any covered repairs whose obligations are insured in the event it does not timely pay eligible claimsAAC has contracted with DSC to fulfill AAC’s servicing duties as the administrator of the program This letter is in response to your inquiry dated January 28, directed to DSC’s parent who requested I review the facts reported for his claim (M15-13196) and the terms, conditions and limitations of his contract to determine if a proper adjustment of the claim was made and his request for cancellation of the contract honoredSince DSC almost exclusively conducts its business via phone conversations with repair facilities and contract holders, it has established procedures to immediately capture the contents of each conversation in order to (1) assure the most accurate data possible from each conversation is preserved and (2) allow any of its examiners to quickly respond to the continuing segments of a claim by easily referencing the data DSC’s data procedure is noted due to some of the entries being quoted in this response The claim was reported to DSC by the repair facility on December 8, at 2:PM At that time DSC immediately requested specific auto claim data, a diagnosis for the repairs and the facts of the claim to determine if coverage was available Since no information was available at that time, DSC called the claim facility on December 11, 20-at 2:PM for an update It was then suggested that DSC contact “Daniel” (408-561-1598) who replied that he was on vacation and would call with the repair estimates and requested information the following week DSC finally heard from the repair facility on December 22, at 3:PM with their findings that resulted in requesting Mr [redacted] to authorize a tear down of his vehicle’s engine to determine what had actually caused the repairs When claims are submitted requesting authorization for repairs to a vehicle’s engine, its DSC’s procedure, as permitted by the terms of Mr [redacted] ’s service contract, to assign an Independent Inspector to review the findings and recommendations of the repair facility The Inspector comes on site and completes an inspection of the torn down unit to determine the causation of any failed parts This procedure allows DSC to have an extra set of “eyes” render an Inspection Report containing the details to include photos of the cause of damage DSC has also found the inspection procedure acts as a deterrent for repair facilities requesting unnecessary or improper repairs The Report’s findings are then applied to the facts of the claim and contents of the service contract to determine if coverage is available for the claim DSC’s procedure and decision to order an inspection was confirmed during its conversation with the repair facility on January 6, when they stated that the repair’s cause of failure and extent of damages were still not known The Independent Inspection took place on January 8, that resulted in the Cause of Failure being reported due to “continued operation while low on coolant causing warping of the cylinder head, coolant loss due to leaking thermostat housing” Since only the thermostat housing (not the thermostat itself) was not a part listed for coverage in the contract, there were no benefits available In order for benefits to be triggered under Mr [redacted] ’s service contract, section IDEFINITONS, the item that references the word Breakdown must first be satisfied Breakdown means failure of a covered Mechanical or Electrical part under service Service contract forms are known in the insurance industry as named peril contracts meaning that unless the part or component are named in one of the listed coverage, there are no benefits available Since the Inspection Report also stated the cause of failure was due to the continued operation while low on coolant, DSC reviewed contract Section VWHAT IS NOT COVERED, item Ethat states that there is coverage for losses that, among other items, includes any Breakdown for caused by the failure to maintain proper levels of coolant and not protecting your vehicle from further damage when a Breakdown occurs in order to buttress its decision of the claim’s denial Due to the Inspection Report findings constituting sufficient DSC’s grounds for the denial of this loss, DSC didn’t proceed to request copies of Mr [redacted] ’s maintenance records that may have contained additional bases for the claim’s denialRegarding Mr [redacted] ’s request to cancel his contract, please note DSC’s attached email that was sent to him yesterday that contained the required form to complete his request It is DSC’s opinion after carefully reviewing the service contract’s terms, conditions and limitations as they are applied to the reported facts in this matter and also the contents of the referenced inspector’s report, that there would be no coverage afforded for Mr [redacted] ’s claim This opinion is based upon the current information contained in DSC’s records and this inquiry and in no way will set precedence for the handling of future claims Therefore, it is given with a full reservation of rights that might be available under the service contract and applicable law to change at a later date This letter is also written pursuant to Rule of the appropriate rules of evidence in an attempt to resolve a disputed matter and therefore is not admissible If there are additional facts that might cause DSC to change its opinion, please forward immediately for our review and further consideration
National Administrative Service CoLLC (NASC) is responsible for conducting the servicing needs of Mr [redacted] ’s cited contract under a service contract program called Performance Care RV His contract’s obligor is Autoguard Advantage Corporation (AAC) that is primarily liable to pay for any covered repairs whose obligations are insured in the event it does not timely pay eligible claimsAAC has contracted with NASC to fulfill AAC’s servicing duties as the administrator of the program This letter is in response to the recent complaint initiated by [redacted] that involves the contractual requirements that must first be fulfilled to transfer of Mr [redacted] ’s service contract to him NASC’s records note that on December 17, at 10:AM, a call was received from Mr [redacted] questioning the necessity of the documentation required by the terms of the contract to transfer the Mr [redacted] ’s cited service contract to him NASC’s records further disclose the transfer of the contract has not been made due to the inability of parties to provide copies of the travel trailer’s maintenance records The manufacturer’s maintenance requirements applicable to Mr [redacted] ’s model travel trailer call for at a minimum for at least four annual receipts to be presented to NASC from a qualified service technician that has inspected the unit’s refrigerator’s connections, the contract system, gas pressure and flue baffle Additionally, dependent upon where the unit is actually stored, there are a number of winterization requirements for any plumbing fixtures and items such as toilets, sinks, tubs, black, gray and fresh water tanks that must be observed by the parties and documented to NASC Mr [redacted] ’s contract section VGENERAL PROVISIONS, item DTranferability, requires the original service Contract Holder within days of the change of ownership to submit to NASC (1) the Original service Contract Application, (2) a letter requesting the transfer signed by Messrs [redacted] and [redacted] listing the date of transfer and the odometer mileage, (3) a $transfer fee payable to NASC, and (4) copies of the vehicle’s maintenance records Regarding the final item, the contract’s section goes on to state that copies of the maintenance records and original receipts must include evidence that the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance work had been performed If the requirements are not met, NASC has the right to deny the transfer of the contract If Messrs [redacted] or [redacted] can provide evidence (copies of the front and back of their negotiated check that were made payable to NASC), their check was cashed by NASC, it will immediately refund the $fee to the applicable party
Please see our response to the Complaint filed by [redacted]
We have received the referenced complaint and are taking the steps necessary to resolve the issue with the complainant.Thank you.Dimension Service Corporation
Good afternoon,Ms*** *** made a claim on her vehicle service contract, claim number L17-51236, on November 16, Ms***s service contract was a covered component contractOnly components specifically listed in her contract are covered for repairNot all vehicle service
contracts are of this type, but the contract Ms*** purchased isFurther, Ms***s vehicle is a "high mileage" vehicle and coverage options diminish as a vehicle enters the high mileage phase of its operation.Her check engine light had come on and she went to Mercedes Benz of South Atlanta to get it check outThe diagnosis that resulted from the third party inspection report was that the cause of the check engine light was a material failure of the balance shaft and a material failure of the intake manifold tumble flap.The components covered under Ms***s contract are set forth in Article II, Schedule of Coverages, Covered Components, (A) EngineThis subsection very clearly stats with the qualifying clause, "The following parts only are covered:"Neither the balance shaft, nor the intake manifold tumble flap are listed in the parts covered.Thus, while Ms*** may be upset, her contract clearly does not cover the parts causing the failure of her engine and the denial of coverage was appropriate in this instance
We are concerned that Ms*** states that she has had a bad experience with are customer support staff and that is being addressed internally.As to the processing of Ms*** claim, it was handled in a very standard manner, as will be described herein.We received notice of the claim
on Thursday April 6, from the repair facility, this started the claim processWe spoke with Ms*** on Friday April 7, and explained the process to her while gathering some additional information from her with which to continue processing the claimThere are an intervening two days comprising he weekend of April and 9, 2017.We had additional contact with the repair facility the following week regarding completion of the diagnosis of the issues claimed by Ms*** and on Wednesday April 12, 2017, the repair shop stated that the vehicle was ready for inspectionNote that we have no control over the timing of the repair shop to complete their independent diagnosis of the items contained in any claim and that some of the delay cited by Ms*** was due to time it took for the repair shop to complete its diagnosis and parts list and authorize inspection.Two days after receiving completion of the diagnosis and clearance for inspection of Ms*** RV, we sent an inspector to the location as is required under the contract on Friday April 14, The claim was authorized on the same day that we received the inspector's reports, Friday April 14, MsField's claim was authorized for $3,in repairs. A week's time from claim notification through claim authorization is fairly typical for an RV repair.We are again concerned that it took the repair facility selected by Ms*** an additional six days, to April 20, to begin the repair work on the vehicle, but, that is outside our ability to controlOf course, the time it took to repair the vehicle is also solely under the control of the repair shop and not in any way something that we can control or influence.While we apologize for Ms*** impression as not receiving the type of customer service our contract holders generally receive, we will note that our records indicate her claim was processed and authorized in approximately one week, even considering the delay we faced in the completed of the diagnosis and inspection approval from the repair shopWe must also note that MsFiled claim was approved for $3,793.19.Brian DB***
Allegiance Administrators, LLC (AAL) is responsible for conducting the servicing needs of Ms***’s cited contract under a service contract program called Millennium Automotive Protective Program Her contract’s obligor is Autoguard Advantage Corporation (AAC) that is primarily liable to pay
for any covered repairs whose obligations are insured in the event it does not timely pay eligible claimsAAC has contracted with AAL to fulfill AAC’s servicing duties as the administrator of the program This letter is in response to your recent inquiry to AAL who requested I review her claim (C16-18086) and the terms, conditions and limitations of her contract to determine if a proper adjustment of the claim was made. The gist of Ms***’s complaint involves AAL’s decision to use “like kind, like quality” replacement parts that meet the manufacturer’s specifications When her claim was determined to require the replacement her vehicle’s steering angle sensor, AAL’s claim representative reviewed her contract’s section IDEFINITION, item Covered Part(s), that defined those parts being “like replacement part meeting the manufacturer’s specification” Additional language supporting AAL’s contractual right to use “like kind, like quality” parts was found in the Breakdown Coverage wordings that state, “Reimbursement amounts for replacement parts or components may be based on new, non-OEM, remanufactured or used parts at Our (AAL’s) sole discretion”.When “after market” parts first made their entrance into the auto parts marketplace over forty years ago, auto manufacturers were quick to criticize their usage due to the threat of loosing their monopolies on their higher priced parts Studies of the structural integrities of after market parts have since shown them to be equal to and in some instances superior to the auto manufacturers’ parts As a result, an insurers’ option to utilize after market parts in lieu of auto manufacturer parts are now routinely approved by state insurance department for parts replacement in insurance contracts Their usages are also allowed due to the fact almost all auto policies are priced actuarially to only place an insured in the same position as before the loss; not in a place of betterment that would result if new OEM parts were to be installed on a used vehicle In this instance Ms*** was given the option to pay the difference in price between the two types of parts but failed to do so AAL therefore paid to conclude her claim $for the sensor, $for an alignment and $for car rental or a total of $1,044.72. It is AAL’s opinion after carefully reviewing the cited service contract’s terms, conditions and limitations as they are applied to the reported facts in this matter that Ms***’s claim was paid in accordance with the terms of her contract and industry standards This opinion is based upon the current information contained in AAL’s records and this inquiry and in no way will set precedence for the handling of future claims Therefore, it is given with a full reservation of rights that might be available under the service contract and applicable law to change at a later date This letter is also written pursuant to Rule of the appropriate rules of evidence in an attempt to resolve a disputed matter and therefore is not admissible If there are additional facts that might cause AAL to change its opinion, please forward immediately for our consideration
The consumer's deposit in the amount of $was charged back to his credit card on March 30, 2016. Please see the attached document showing proof.Thank you.Lori
Good afternoon,After some internal investigation as to Ms*** complaint, we cannot find her in our systemWe were not actively selling service contracts in Wisconsin at the time of her purchase, so, it is possible that she may have directed this complaint to the wrong
company. We will be happy to search further, however, we will need some additional information from Ms***: We will need the contract numberThat should be easy to find as it is listed directly on the contract itselfWe need the Vehicle Identification Number from her vehicleWe need to make certain the contract was purchased under her name exactly as it is now shown - Kristina M***. If Ms*** can supply these pieces of information, we will search further and then respond once more. Thank you. Brian DB***General Counsel
Please note that our offices are not lo**ted in *** *** **Our offices have been located in the
Columbus metropolitan area of Ohio for more than years
In an effort to resolve this matter, please complete the attached **ncellation form and send to us with a
copy of your Contract along with any other documents specified in your booklet under the **ncellation
sectionOur mailing address is:
Allegiance Administrators
Frantz Road
Suite
Dublin, Ohio
Best regards,
Compliance Department Attached is our response to Ms. ***
Our company has taken the steps necessary to reach out to the complainant to try to resolve this matterThank you.Dimension Service Corporation
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because: The first complaint with the ac not working and the reason they didn't cover it should have been questioned by themMy vehicle ac and lines are aluminum, they do not rustWhen we heard what the original shop did, which was different than what they sent to the warranty company, we were told they heated up the lines because they wouldn't disconnectWe took it to another shop for the repairsI am not a mechanic and I know aluminum does not rust, I also know you never heat up aluminum ac linesI got lucky they didn't blow up my truckThe dealer no longer uses them either.The second problem I have is when the brakes first started to act up I was out of townI called them when the shop told me what was wrong and asked what I needed to doI was told they don't cover it and he hung upI was and a half hrs from homeThe shop couldn't get the parts in and we had to get homeI was left no choice but to drive my vehicle homeMy and a half hr drive took almost hrs because we babied it and took lots of breaks to make sure the brakes would hold. I took it in the next day for the shop to call me and tell me again the warranty wasn't covering itI will copy everything I have because I paid extra for gaskets and seals tooThey shouldn't have deducted anything at all because they never paid anythingIt sure didn't give me piece of mindEight now its more of angry and frustrated with constantly being taken advantage of or ripped off. I will have copies of everything sent out to you by Monday Sept12,
I am rejecting this response because: The mechanic disputed the result by the inspector. He said he has never had a problem with other warranty companies with the same damage. The warranty states that " ALL INTERNAL PARTS '' are covered. This is the second time I have been denied a claim. If the company doesn't want to back their warranty they should have to pay back the money for my contract.
In response to the aforementioned complaint filed by our contract holder, [redacted] relating to a claim filed on his behalf by [redacted] Toyota on October 26, 2016, I have responded directly to [redacted]. Enclosed you will find my response along with a specimen copy of his vehicle...
service contract, associated with our Car Guard Basic vehicle service contract. If you require any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me, I have also included my business card with my contact information. Sincerely, Kenny H[redacted]Vice President Enclosures
I reviewed the response made by the business and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.
Please see our response to the Complaint filed by [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because I feel I need to say a few things about incident. First of all, there was obviously a communication problem with the claims adjuster and the repair facility. Your claims adjuster had such an attitude with my repair facility, he called me and said he wasn't going to work with him. I called Wholesale Warranty, the company I purchased the contract through, on 4/7/17 after the unacceptable conversation I had with him and what the repair facility stated. She called your company and spoke to the claims adjuster and supposedly worked it out for them to work together. Im sure their conversation is documented. This was the beginning of a bad experience. On Mon. 4/10/17 I contacted the repair facility about the claim, they had not heard from you. Just to be sure, I called your company on 4/10, he would not return my call. I called the manager over him. No call from him either. On 4/11, 4/12, called and asked about my claim. No response from anyone. Called my repair facility, they had not heard anything. So at this point I am confused as to what you said of who was the person holding up the claim. The repair facility was not getting responses, and neither was I . I was then notified on 4/12, by the claims adjuster that someone was coming to look over the repair work. So we waited 2 more days, and on 4/14/17, someone looked at our repairs on your behalf. I was not told until 4/17/17 that it had been authorized for repairs. This is where I am coming up with 12 days. Therefore, because it took this amount of time to get approval, the repair facility could not get us in until 3 days later, not a week later. This whole incident happened because your claims adjuster was rude, arrogant and unprofessional to me and obviously to my repair facility. Its is obvious no one is going to address the issue of his arrogant attitude, except to say due to privacy issues, it cannot be discussed what was done, if anything. I feel like the claims adjuster did not want to expedite my claim after my conversation with him on the phone, he did not want to work with the repair facility since he stated to me on the phone the he didn't know what he was doing! Those were his words. This is why we feel that our claim was not handled the way it should have been. I have had a few claims with your company, and they were handled in a few days with no problems. Also, you state you paid $3793.19 on this claim for us. You failed to state that we paid out of pocket $2690.85 for parts and labor not covered by our policy with you.We have the ELITE POLICY, which we thought would cover most expenses. Also we paid $240 for campground fees for the 12 days waiting for authorization. It would just be nice to know that you acknowledge his unacceptable behavior and negligence in getting my claim done in a reasonable amount of time.