American Colonial Administration, LLC

This correspondence is in response to Case # [redacted] , regarding a claim for contract holder Austin Hamby on a Ford FVIN # [redacted] As the contract administrator, it is our responsibility to evaluate claims filed with our call center for coverage under the specific terms and conditions of each service contract agreement Breakdowns are evaluated for coverage by determining the cause and extent of a failure using information provided by repair facility representatives, contract holders, and independent, third party inspectors who function as our “eyes and ears” in the fieldIn this case, [redacted] with [redacted] , reported that the engine in the vehicle had two broken rods, resulting in severe damage to the engine block and other internal engine components The cause of failure was unknownFollowing standard procedure for any catastrophic engine failure, we requested that the facility perform whatever diagnosis and disassembly to the engine necessary to determine the CAUSE of failure The facility reported teardown and an independent, third party, independent inspector was dispatched to evaluate the cause and extent of the damage despite the limited teardownUpon arrival, only the engine oil pan was removed; the engine failure appeared to be the likely result of “hydro-lock”, a condition that occurs when a non-combustible or compressible material, such as water or foreign debris, enters the engine cylinder To evaluate the claim for coverage under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract, it would be necessary to determine whether this were likely to have been the cause of failure To do so would require teardown to the CAUSE of failure as initially requestedBoth the customer and the contract holder have resisted performing any additional teardown on the engine In an effort to resolve this matter expeditiously, we contacted the repair facility and arranged a second inspection using a borescope to view the inside of the engine, without performing additional teardown The results of this were not conclusive – again, the failure suggests that hydro-lock, or a foreign material in the engine, may have been the cause of the failureDuring the course of the inspection, it was discovered that the owner of the vehicle is an employee of the repair facility Service facility management confirmed the vehicle owner is an employee This places the vehicle owner in the unique position of having a access and understanding throughout the processesThe delays to this point could have been avoid by performing the diagnosis and teardown necessary to properly evaluate the submitted claim We are committed to expediting the claim and to applying coverage as provided for under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract To do so, we must make a reasonable effort to establish the cause of failure, which will require teardown to CAUSE of failure, as has been requested since the claim was initiated The contract holder/vehicle owner/ employee in in a position to oversee and coordinate this effortOnce complete, we will make every attempt to resolve the matter as quickly as possibleIf you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact usRegards, Eric A [redacted] National Claims Manager

Revdex.com of Central Oklahoma ATTN: [redacted] South Dewey Oklahoma City, OK RE: Case # [redacted] Contract no: [redacted] Dear Ms***: This correspondence is in response to Case # [redacted] , regarding a denied claim for contract holder [redacted] on a Thor motorhome VIN # [redacted] under Repair Care Superior vehicle service contract # [redacted] As the contract administrator, it is our responsibility to evaluate claims filed with our call center for coverage under the specific terms and conditions of each service contract agreement Breakdowns are evaluated for coverage by determining the cause and extent of a failure using information provided by repair facility representatives, contract holders, and independent, third party inspectors who function as our “eyes and ears” in the field In June 2015, a claim was filed on the customer’s behalf by “RV Complete” The repair was evaluated and approved utilizing a part with a lifetime replacement warrantyAmerican Colonial Administration does not offer a network of approved “network” repair facilities, rather, the vehicle service contract permits the contract holder to select any licensed repair facility and secure repairs, warranties, etcfrom the elected repair facility In this case, the facility elected to use a part with an inferior warranty When the part failed, based on the prior approval of a lifetime part, the customer’s follow up claim was approved for labor only – the fact that the previous repair facility is out of business is not the primary issue – the lifetime parts warranty would be available at any licensed repair facility, had that part been used in the repair It is our opinion that the claim was appropriately handled, however, as an act of goodwill towards the customer, the cooling unit repair, for both parts and labor, was approved on April 10, This should resolve the matter to the customer’s satisfaction If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this decision, please feel free to contact us Best regards, [redacted] VSC National Claims Manager www.iasdirect.com p ###-###-#### f ###-###-####

Mr [redacted] initiated a claim for GAP benefits on August 21, for a loss occurring on August 8, A letter was mailed to him advising of the required documents needed for his claim on that same day It appeared we had received the final information for his claim on 10/4/ His claim was sent to review on 10/9/ Mr [redacted] called and left a message regarding the status of his claim on 10/10/ An e-mail was sent to him advising his claim had been sent to review After being reviewed, his claim was submitted for final adjudication on 10/16/ Mr [redacted] was again advised of the status of his claim on 11/6/ On 11/14/17, we received the information regarding the adjudication of his claim Mr [redacted] was sent a settlement letter explaining the GAP payment on that same date Contrary to Mr [redacted] ’ beliefs, the GAP contract does not pay the difference between his loan balance and the insurance check The GAP contract looks at the deficiency between the loan balance on the date of loss and the value of his vehicle The claim is calculated based on the terms of his GAP contract and does not cover items such as missed payments, extensions, refundable items, etc The promptness of documents being submitted determines the promptness of the claim resolution In addition, the recent storms have caused a larger volume of claims to be assessed We regret Mr [redacted] feels there were any delays in the handling of his claim Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information Sincerely, [redacted] [redacted] Claims Supervisor

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/10/26) */

Please refer to the attachment I did receive a check for $for the overcharge of the axels This does not cover the labor costs associated with the removal and replacement of the wheel bearing The shop did not include any labor on the replacement like it should have and instead included all labor under the transmission replacement The total labor for both tasks totaled $1, I removed $from this total for the removal and replacement of the wheel bearing The company and the shop can determine the correct amount associated with the removal and replacement, but based on talks with other shops this should be close to the labor cost

I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find the resolution is satisfactory to meHowever, I am attaching the receipt I have received from Benz Dealership for the recordAlso, I have never received any email or phone call back from the "extended warranty company"I would love to see any of the emails they have sent with the time stamp, if possibleThank you so much for taking your time to resolve this matterThey are definitely neglecting their customers in terms of follow up, if I can rate this company, most-definitely it would be Regards, [redacted]

To clarify the issue, an itemization of every part involved in the different repair is attached; both how much was invoiced by the facility, and how much was covered/paid under the vehicle service contract.When evaluating a claim for coverage, the covered portions are determined based on the contract terms and conditions Approvals are often based aftermarket components, as indicated in the vehicle service contract Other repairs fall under limits of liability that are established in the vehicle service contract In this case, the components used for the transmission repair total 3986.04, however, these are limited to a limit of liability Additionally, components that were approved using aftermarket parts for invoiced at higher amounts based on original equipment parts that were more expensive -- these additional amounts are not reimbursable.After a thorough review, it remains our opinion that the claim was accurately reimbursed under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract

***See Attached***

Dear Mr***: This a follow up to the customer’s correspondence is in response to Case # ***, regarding a claim for contract holder Luis Figueroa on a Hyundai Santa Fe VIN # *** As previously indicated, evaluation of this consumer’s engine indicates that the vehicle was operated with insufficient engine oil, resulting in catastrophic engine damage. The customer’s response, without comment, is a link to a third party website that indicates Hyundai Sante Fe’s have had reported issues on engines, engine starting, throttle bodies, oil leaks, speed controls, and engine cooling Engines are mechanical, and regardless of manufacturer, subject to failure. No engine manufacture is immune to having failures, however, the consumer has a responsibility to maintain the engine in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements; failure to maintain the vehicle within these requirements may result in premature engine failure Our evaluation of the claim is based solely on the conditions of this consumers engine and the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract In this case, the physical evidence indicates the operator failed to maintain sufficient oil in the engine, which has resulted in engine failure. Under the terms and condition of the vehicle service contract, this cause of failure is excluded from coverage If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact us Regards, Eric A*** National Claims Manager

This correspondence is in response to Case # ***, on contract # *** for contract holder *** *** (complaint filed by *** ***) on a Nissan Juke, VIN # ***. The contract holder is seeking an amount to replace the contracted vehicle in its entirety
under a contract designed to covered mechanical and electrical breakdowns, as well as additional compensation for “pain and loss”. On March 5, 2013, the customer purchased the aforementioned vehicle from Bert Ogden Chevrolet. The purchase of an Advance Plus Comprehensive Wrap contract was reported at that time, contract number ***. As indicated by the contract holder, in May 9, 2016, Bert Ogden Nissan reported an A/C issue, initially diagnosed as failure of an electrical cooling fan. After performing that repair, the facility discovered additional A/C failure, necessitating inspection by an independent, third party, to verify cause and extent. Inspection was performed within hours and they claim approved. Following supplemental claim approval, the facility reported parts delays that would carry over the weekend; a rental allowance was added to the claim. On October 26, 2016, the vehicle returned to Bert Ogden Nissan with a drivability issue, initially reported by the facility as turbocharger failure suspected to have caused contamination in the engine. A claim was called in to our call center on October 27, 2016, at which time we advised the facility that the customer had only Wrap coverage, which would not provide powertrain coverage. Under the Advance Plus Comprehensive Wrap contract, coverage is provided to “repair or replace any Breakdown of all parts listed in Comprehensive coverage, except for Engine, Transmission, Transfer Case, and Drive Axle parts and components…”(Section II, SCHEDULE OF COVERAGES, italics added for emphasis). The reported turbocharger failure and engine damage falls under these categories. Subsequent to the receipt of Mr*** complaint, we contacted the repair facility, who reported that no repairs were performed to the vehicle, that the customer paid a diagnostic fee and traded the vehicle in. As the contract administrator, it is our responsibility to evaluate claims filed with our call center for coverage under the specific terms and conditions of each service contract agreement, as applicable. Breakdowns are evaluated for coverage by determining the cause and extent of a failure using information provided by repair facility representatives, contract holders, and independent, third party inspectors who function as our “eyes and ears” in the field. As no repairs were performed to the vehicle, and to our knowledge, the vehicle was driven into and out of the repair facility without being serviced, it is impossible to verify that the recommended turbocharger and engine replacement were necessary to any degree, or that the repair would fall under any coverage provided by the vehicle service contract. If there contract holder feels this decision was in error, we find no documented attempt to resolve the matter prior to the vehicle sale/trade. Additionally, there has been no indication that the issued required the vehicle to be sold or traded-in. Vehicles with engine issues can be repaired in a manner ranging from simple to comprehensive, depending on the severity of the issue. Loss of vehicle value is beyond the scope of the coverage the vehicle service contract provides. Negative equity that may be realized as part of a vehicle sale/trade arrangement can occur as the result of many factors, including vehicle depreciation, negative equity carried from a previous transaction, etc. The contract provides coverage for covered mechanical and electrical breakdowns as detailed under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract agreementSince no repairs were performed, the vehicle service contract can provide no assistance. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact us. Regards, Eric A***VSC National Claims Managerwww.iasdirect.comp ###-###-####f ###-###-####

This correspondence is in response to Case # *** , regarding a denied claim for contract holder *** *** on a Jeep Patriot VIN # ***under Auto Advance Powertrain vehicle service contract # *** The contract holder’s complaint is based on the
supposition that the vehicle service contract is providing a lesser benefit on a current claim than it provided on a previous, similar repair. This is not the case; the current repair has a much greater scope than the previous repair referred to In June 2016, a claim was filed for a right rear wheel bearing, which was approved, after deductible, for a total of 108.16. This was the full amount requested by the repair facility In June 2017, a second claim was filed for a right rear wheel bearing and for a transmission issue. Again, the right rear wheel bearing repair was covered for the full amount requested by the repair facility (repair estimate and approval was 157.40) The second portion of the claim was for a transmission replacement. In this case, the vehicle service contract has a maximum liability for a transmission repair of 3000.00; the repair as estimated by the facility was repair was The vehicle service contract has approved the rear wheel bearing repair at the estimated amount and the transmission repair was approved to the maximum benefit amount available. Presumably, the difference the customer spoke of is the difference between the actual cost of the transmission repair and the maximum benefit available under the vehicle service contract It is our opinion that the claim was handled appropriately and that the customer was provided the full benefit for which they are eligible. A PDF sample of the applicable contract verbiage is attached If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this decision, please feel free to contact us Regards, Eric A*** National Claims Manager

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: This was never explained when we found out what the issue wasNo one said the this claim was denied due to the PCV valve. no one told me that the PCV system was the problemthe only reason I was given for denial was that this
was a technical service bulletinthis bulletin is strictly there to inform technicians what an issue could be based off of common occurrencesAgain the only reason for denial I was given by both the mechanic and a representative from your company is that you do not cover anything that is on a TSBI read the what's not covered portion and it does not explain anywhere that a TSB is not coveredThere are 100's of these TSB'sAs you have changed your reason for denial I do not except this as a resolution
Sincerely,
*** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: In February all documents were mailed to the following address as instructed on the Gap Addendum Contract American Colonial Admin LLC *** *** *** *** *** *** Oklahoma City, Ok
73134 All documents were mailed within the days as specified on the contact because of the understanding that if docs were not sent, the responsibility of approx$10,would be my responsibility. Notification was made well in advance to ACA in Oklahoma. An internal error must have been made if the ACA Ohio office was just notified on 7/21/15. Then on 7/21/were were just notified: Why wasn't their any notice prior to 7/21/to the customer? Why was ACA Ohio office just notified on 7/21/15? The day notice would expire 5/10/15. The customer should have been notified of any pending docs or docs not received but yet the ACA Ohio office wasn't made aware of the claim until days after the day window. In an emailed dated 10/16/15, ACA in Ohio finally indicated what docs were missing. Reference was made to the original finance agreement missing a section (the original was provided to the Oklahoma office). Reference was made to the copy of Bill of Sale being illegible (we were not responsible for producing the document). Reference was made about needing a theft affidavit (The Gap Contract only refers to submitting: Accident/ police report (which was submitted via mail in 2/2015) On December 23, was when all documents had to be re-submitted AGAIN but this time to the ACA Ohio office. In the letter, the gap claims supervisor refers to the affiliate company in Oklahoma as immediately faxing docs to the Ohio office but the Ohio office was not notified until 7/21/15. That statement does contradict how soon the Ohio office was made aware of the claim. I hope this allows some consideration of how to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
*** ***

This correspondence is in response to Case # ***, regarding an authorized claim for contractholder *** *** on a Winnebago motorhome VIN # ***As the contract administrator, it is our responsibility to evaluate claims filed with our call center forcoverage under the specific
terms and conditions of each service contract agreementBreakdowns areevaluated for coverage by determining the cause and extent of a failure using information provided byrepair facility representatives, contract holders, and independent, third party inspectors who function asour "eyes and ears" in the field.The aforementioned vehlcle was taken to Freightliner of MtVernon, Washington, with an overheatingconcernThe issue was evaluated and determined to be a crack in the engine block, one that is commonfor this engine and that can be repaired without engine replacementAfter verification of the failure viathird party inspection, and confirmation with a west coast repair facility that the failure could berepaired, the claim was approved for $on September 19,to have the engine blockrepaired.Throughout this process, we had been in contact with the contract holder on several occasions.Following the claim approval, the customer attempted to have the repair performed, however hereports meeting resistance from the Freightliner dealership, and finding that the service provider thathad formerly agreed to repair the engine block could not do so until November or later.I spoke with Mr*** on 9/29/September 29, at whlch time we discussed his concerns that, while theengine could be repaired, the specifics of his situation created unreasonable hardshipOur research intothese allegations discovered that the Freightliner dealership local to Mr*** was not cooperativeregarding the repair, and that it was in fact accurate that the service provider had reneged on theirprevious agreement to locally repair the engine.Based on these findings, the claim was revisited and complete engine approval was authorized on10/5/for a total of $15,Between 9/29/2016, when I became involved, and 10/5/2016,when the revised claim was approved, we were in contact with Mr***, either via phone or email, on9/30, 10/1, 10/3, 10/4, and finally 10/5.While the complexity of the claim and the obstacles encountered resulted in some delay, It is ouropinion that the claim has been sufficient resolved under the terms and conditions of the vehicle servicecontract by accommodating the contract holder's request to replace the engine than repair the engine.If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact us.Regards, Eric A*** National Claims Manager

This correspondence is in response to Case # ***, regarding a claim for contract holder *** *** on a Toyota Corolla VIN # ***.As the contract administrator, it is our responsibility to evaluate claims filed with our call center for coverage under the specific terms and
conditions of each service contract agreement Breakdowns are evaluated for coverage by determining the cause and extent of a failure using information provided by repair facility representatives, contract holders, and independent, third party inspectors who function as our “eyes and ears” in the field.In this case, the repair facility reported failure of the Engine Control Module (ECM) and engine wiring harness The Auto Advance Preferred vehicle service contract provides coverage for all components listed as covered; components that are not listed are not covered In this case, the reported failed components are not listed and were therefore not covered The coverage was reviewed with the contract holder and a detailed explanation provided on January 3, Mr*** references a previous claim denial, which was for an ignition coil, also a non-listed, non-covered component It is worth noting that Mr*** did have a covered claim on June 29, for a water pump failure.After talking with both parties, there appears to have been some confusion regarding when to expect a return call, which may have led to a misunderstanding regarding whether to expect a return phone call It is absolutely our policy that every customer is entitled to an explanation regarding their coverage, and it is our practice to return customer’s calls as evidenced by the fact that Mr*** spoke to our customer service representative, “Kim”, on January 3, 2017, and received a return call that same day Mr*** requested that either his claim be paid or he be granted a refund of the service contract Since the contract does not provide coverage for the failures Mr*** has experienced and has not met his expectations, he would be eligible for a refund pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract He was provided with the information necessary to process a cancellation and prorata refund.If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact us.Regards, Eric A***VSC National Claims Managerwww.iasdirect.comp ###-###-####f ###-###-####

Dear Mr***: This correspondence is in response to Case # ***, regarding a denied claim for contract holder *** *** on a Dodge Journey VIN # *** under a lifetime powertrain service certificate # *** As the contract administrator, it is our
responsibility to evaluate claims filed with our call center for coverage under the specific terms and conditions of each service contract agreement. Breakdowns are evaluated for coverage by determining the cause and extent of a failure using information provided by repair facility representatives, contract holders, and independent, third party inspectors who function as our “eyes and ears” in the field The complaint is regarding coverage under a Lifetime Powertrain Service Certificate, which requires the vehicle owner to return to the seller for services at defined intervals as a conditional of coverage. The consumer has performed most, although not all, services required, however, none of these services were performed at the selling dealer as required as a condition of coverage. The consumer has no record of the required transmission service The condition for coverage based on services performed at the selling deal is detailed multiple times within the contract, including: The registration /signature page: Declarations, “This document describes the protection You have under the Certificate in return for Your complete performance of the Maintenance Requirements for Your Vehicle at Our Dealership and Your payment for those maintenance services provided.” Section IDefinitions: “This Certificate is no longer valid if You do not perform Your Maintenance Requirements at Our Dealership” Section III., What is Not Covered, paragraph B.: “…any breakdowns if You have not performed the Maintenance Requirements and at the service intervals described on the registration page and have the Maintenance Requirements performed at Our Dealership.” This issue is also addressed in Section IV., Contract Holder’s Responsibilities, paragraph A., and Section VGeneral Provisions, paragraph F As the contract holder failed to perform the all specified services and failed to have any of these services performed at the selling dealership, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Service Certificate, the claim was rejected If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact us Regards, Eric A*** National Claims Manager

I did get some oil changes done at the dealership them they decided to take the price from $40 to $60 and I couldn't afford that for every 3,000 miles as I do a lot of driving. I keep up with ALL maintenance I was told to keep up with. There was no mention to me about any transmission maintenance that needed to be done. I was told it was a no service transmission. So how is it fair to require that oil changes be completed at the dealership for $60 each one when their competitors charge a 3rd of that price? Also whenever anything was happening with my vehicle and I brought it to the dealership to be looked at they required an upfront payment of $295 dollars just to look at it. Then if it was covered they'd refund me. However, most people that have reviewed said dealership claim that they'll say nothing's wrong with it, even if another shop says there is. How is one to afford nearly $300 dollars for a person to say nothing's wrong when there clearly is? This is ridiculous.

This correspondence is in response to Case # [redacted], regarding a claim for contract holder Austin Hamby on a 2013 Ford F150 VIN # 1[redacted] As the contract administrator, it is our responsibility to evaluate claims filed with our call center for coverage under the specific...

terms and conditions of each service contract agreement.  Breakdowns are evaluated for coverage by determining the cause and extent of a failure using information provided by repair facility representatives, contract holders, and independent, third party inspectors who function as our “eyes and ears” in the field. In this case, [redacted] with [redacted], reported that the engine in the vehicle had two broken rods, resulting in severe damage to the engine block and other internal engine components.  The cause of failure was unknown. Following standard procedure for any catastrophic engine failure, we requested that the facility perform whatever diagnosis and disassembly to the engine necessary to determine the CAUSE of failure.  The facility reported teardown and an independent, third party, independent inspector was dispatched to evaluate the cause and extent of the damage despite the limited teardown. Upon arrival, only the engine oil pan was removed; the engine failure appeared to be the likely result of “hydro-lock”, a condition that occurs when a non-combustible or compressible material, such as water or foreign debris, enters the engine cylinder.  To evaluate the claim for coverage under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract, it would be necessary to determine whether this were likely to have been the cause of failure.  To do so would require teardown to the CAUSE of failure as initially requested. Both the customer and the contract holder have resisted performing any additional teardown on the engine.  In an effort to resolve this matter expeditiously, we contacted the repair facility and arranged a second inspection using a borescope to view the inside of the engine, without performing additional teardown.  The results of this were not conclusive – again, the failure suggests that hydro-lock, or a foreign material in the engine, may have been the cause of the failure. During the course of the inspection, it was discovered that the owner of the vehicle is an employee of the repair facility.  Service facility management confirmed the vehicle owner is an employee.  This places the vehicle owner in the unique position of having a access and understanding throughout the processes. The delays to this point could have been avoid by performing the diagnosis and teardown necessary to properly evaluate the submitted claim.  We are committed to expediting the claim and to applying coverage as provided for under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract.  To do so, we must make a reasonable effort to establish the cause of failure, which will require teardown to CAUSE of failure, as has been requested since the claim was initiated.  The contract holder/vehicle owner/ employee in in a position to oversee and coordinate this effort. Once complete, we will make every attempt to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact us. Regards,  Eric A[redacted]National Claims Manager

[redacted]See Attached[redacted]