Dimension Service Corporation (DSC) is responsible for the servicing needs of Mr. [redacted]’s service contract (EF00069[redacted]) 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 claims. AAC 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, 2016 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 honored. Since 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, 2015 at 2:33 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, 20-15 at 2:36 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, 2015 at 3:31 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, 2016 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, 2016 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 I. DEFINITONS, the item that references the word Breakdown must first be satisfied. Breakdown means failure of a covered Mechanical or Electrical part under normal 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 V. WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item E. that 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 denial. Regarding 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 408 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.
This is to acknowledge receipt of your email correspondence regarding the referenced complaint.Dimension Service Corporation takes consumer feedback very seriously and therefore welcomes the opportunity to explain any of its staff's actions concerning the servicing of its contract holder's service...
contract requests. As a result of that, we have fully reviewed this matter and a detailed response was provided directly to the consumer. The consumer in their discretion, has the option of sharing our response directly with you.Thank 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 response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: 11870321
I am rejecting...
this response be**use: None of the correspondence I have sent them has been received by them, it was returned "not deliverable" by the post office. I was hoping you might have another address or could trace this through the Allegiance CSI **re company. Thank you.
Regards,
[redacted]
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 10 Picture of damaged slide topper 11 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 payment. I specifically purchased in attachment 3 items #27(Slide out system), #33 (Non-covered part cause of loss), #34 (Covered Part Cause of Loss), and #35 (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 out. They claim that since fasteners are listed in the not covered portion of the contract, the claim was rejected. However, as stated above I purchased the “Optional Non-Covered Part cause of Loss”. This should have covered the damage to the covered mechanical slide topper. In addition, the screws are part of the topper roller and are thus part of a covered item. So either way the claim should not have been rejected.The rear slide out repair (attachment 6) is covered under the contract in optional coverage #27 “Slide out systems”. This slide is operated by an electric motor and has no cables. They appear to be confusing the bed slide with the other rear slide which is operated with a cable system. I had the cable system repaired, per their suggestion, at the repair facility that had recently worked on that slide. The seal repair for the bed slide is covered under optional coverage #35 (seals and gaskets). I have attached a page from the manufactures catalog (attachment 9) which shows it as a seal. In 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 disputed. As part of the repair, I was unable to stay in my RV for a number of days. Under the contract “Trip Interruption” in the event of a breakdown over 100 miles from my residence (I was over 900 miles away), I am authorized up to three days motel and meals for a maximum of $375. I stayed at a private residence and paid for room and board. I needed a receipt for the lodging and they provided one under the heading of bed and breakfast. I submitted a copy of this receipt. Since they were a private residence, my contract was canceled for misrepresentation. I could have accepted the non-payment because it was not a motel (as stated in the contract) but not unilaterally canceling my warranty. I paid for lodging and assumed the term motel was generic. There 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 incurred. In attachment 8, they reference the cost of the contract being $26,172.40. I think this is the reason for their actions. In a previous negotiations, they offered to settle if I would agree to canceling the contract. I refused, and the very next claim they used a fictitious reason to accomplish their desire to save the cost of further potential claims.
National Administrative Service Co. LLC (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 claims. AAC 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, 2015 at 10:50 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 2010 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 V. GENERAL PROVISIONS, item D. Tranferability, requires the original service Contract Holder within 30 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 $75 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 $75 fee to the applicable party.
Dimension Service Corporation (DSC) is responsible for the servicing needs of Mr. [redacted]’s service contract (EF00069[redacted]) 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 claims. AAC 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, 2016 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 honored. Since 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, 2015 at 2:33 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, 20-15 at 2:36 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, 2015 at 3:31 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, 2016 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, 2016 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 I. DEFINITONS, the item that references the word Breakdown must first be satisfied. Breakdown means failure of a covered Mechanical or Electrical part under normal 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 V. WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item E. that 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 denial. Regarding 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 408 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.
This is to acknowledge receipt of your email correspondence regarding the referenced complaint.Dimension Service Corporation takes consumer feedback very seriously and therefore welcomes the opportunity to explain any of its staff's actions concerning the servicing of its contract holder's service...
contract requests. As a result of that, we have fully reviewed this matter and a detailed response was provided directly to the consumer. The consumer in their discretion, has the option of sharing our response directly with you.Thank 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 response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: 11870321
I am rejecting...
this response be**use: None of the correspondence I have sent them has been received by them, it was returned "not deliverable" by the post office. I was hoping you might have another address or could trace this through the Allegiance CSI **re company. Thank you.
Regards,
[redacted]
Please see the attached response regarding the above-referenced complaint.
Attached is Allegiance's signed Agreement to Arbitrate with Mr. Brown 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 10 Picture of damaged slide topper 11 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 payment. I specifically purchased in attachment 3 items #27(Slide out system), #33 (Non-covered part cause of loss), #34 (Covered Part Cause of Loss), and #35 (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 out. They claim that since fasteners are listed in the not covered portion of the contract, the claim was rejected. However, as stated above I purchased the “Optional Non-Covered Part cause of Loss”. This should have covered the damage to the covered mechanical slide topper. In addition, the screws are part of the topper roller and are thus part of a covered item. So either way the claim should not have been rejected.The rear slide out repair (attachment 6) is covered under the contract in optional coverage #27 “Slide out systems”. This slide is operated by an electric motor and has no cables. They appear to be confusing the bed slide with the other rear slide which is operated with a cable system. I had the cable system repaired, per their suggestion, at the repair facility that had recently worked on that slide. The seal repair for the bed slide is covered under optional coverage #35 (seals and gaskets). I have attached a page from the manufactures catalog (attachment 9) which shows it as a seal. In 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 disputed. As part of the repair, I was unable to stay in my RV for a number of days. Under the contract “Trip Interruption” in the event of a breakdown over 100 miles from my residence (I was over 900 miles away), I am authorized up to three days motel and meals for a maximum of $375. I stayed at a private residence and paid for room and board. I needed a receipt for the lodging and they provided one under the heading of bed and breakfast. I submitted a copy of this receipt. Since they were a private residence, my contract was canceled for misrepresentation. I could have accepted the non-payment because it was not a motel (as stated in the contract) but not unilaterally canceling my warranty. I paid for lodging and assumed the term motel was generic. There 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 incurred. In attachment 8, they reference the cost of the contract being $26,172.40. I think this is the reason for their actions. In a previous negotiations, they offered to settle if I would agree to canceling the contract. I refused, and the very next claim they used a fictitious reason to accomplish their desire to save the cost of further potential claims.
National Administrative Service Co. LLC (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 claims. AAC 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, 2015 at 10:50 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 2010 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 V. GENERAL PROVISIONS, item D. Tranferability, requires the original service Contract Holder within 30 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 $75 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 $75 fee to the applicable party.