Sign in

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc Reviews (345)

Review: We purchased a 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse in July of 2016. By September we noticed that sometimes it was hard to put the car into first gear. We took it to our local transmission mechanic and they took it for a test drive. The mechanic told me that the gears were slipping. I gave him the name of the company that the warranty was through so he could call them. Later on the warranty company called me and asked me some questions. One of the questions was, "During the test drive was there any problems?" I said that at one point the car did not go into first and that I think is was because I did not have the clutch in all the way. Other than that there were no problems, and that we had taken it for a test drive on different days. After a while I got a call from the mechanic saying that my claim was denied. I called the warranty company back for more information and they said that because I purchased the car knowing that there was a preexisting problem that they could not pay to have the car fixed. I am not a mechanic and aside from that 30 second hiccup with first gear it seemed great. It did not matter that the mechanic told them that the transmission was slipping gears, which I had no idea that that was happening. I tried talking to a supervisor but that went no whereDesired Settlement: I would like to have the transmission fixed.

Business

Response:

September 26, 2016VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2000 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated, September 23, 2016, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 20, 2016 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on July 21, 2016 (the attached Service Contract).On September 23, 2016 at 9:17 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission/clutch issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures.On September 23, 2016 at 9:26 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS the customer’s vehicle was driven to the repair facility on September 22, 2016. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues shifting into first gear and the clutch was slipping.On September 23, 2016 at 1:31 p.m., in a recorded telephone call the customer advised CARS that during the test drive his vehicle experienced issues shifting into gear. The customer advised that he thought the shifting issue was a fluke; however, the shifting issue started again.On September 23, 2016 at 2:10 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that since the shifting issue was present during the test drive which was prior to vehicle purchase and prior to CARS' acceptance of the customer's Service Contract on lulv 21, 2016. CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs to his vehicle.On September 23, 2016 at 2:16 p.m., CARS advised the customer that since the shifting issue was present during the test drive which was prior to CARS' acceptance of his Service Contract on lulv 21, 2016, CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs to his vehicle.On September 23, 2016 at 4:14 p.m., CARS' customer service manager reviewed the claim again with the customer. The customer service supervisor further advised that pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are not covered. CARS' customer service manager further advised the customer that the clutch and related components were not covered under his Service Contract.By the customer's signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. Directly above the customer’s signature, it states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase.” Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. CARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.”As stated previously, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on September 23, 2016, that his vehicle experienced shifting issues during the test drive of his vehicle which was prior to CARS acceptance of his Service Contract on lulv 21. 2106.When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer's vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the September 23, 2016 transmission/clutch claim because the transmission/clutch issues were present prior to CARS' acceptance with payment of the customer’s Service Contract.CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect after they are received with payment, processed and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., which may be different than the date of vehicle purchase. The customer’s Service Contract was processed and approved on lulv 21. 2016.The customer has coverage on his vehicle through October 21, 2016 or when the odometer on his vehicle registers 94,843 miles, whichever occurs first. If his vehicle incurs further mechanical issues, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Power Train Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

Review: I had purchased a warranty with this company and paid a monthly premium for their services which they did not fulfill according to a signed contract.Desired Settlement: I'm requesting a full refund of premiums paid from 12/01/2015 the date of purchase of the warranty, and to be paid the difference in full from the car part they did not cover as indicated.

Business

Response:

[redacted] RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2001 CHEVY TAHOE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated June 1, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On December 1, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Independence Service Contract (Month to Month Recurring Debit). In addition, a Mastercard credit card number, V code and expiration date was provided and also the Payment Authorization form was executed for billing purposes. Pursuant to the RECURRING PAYMENT TERMS and ACCEPTANCE TO TERMS of the customer’s Independence Service Contract and Payment Authorization Form, CARS debited the credit card on December 4, 2015 with the credit card information supplied. The customer’s Independence Service Contract was then approved by CARS, once we received confirmation that the payment was successful. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Independence Service Contract and Recurring Payment Terms, CARS again debited the credit card on file for the months of January 2016, February 2016, March 2016, April 2016, and May 2016. During those months, the customer had Service Contract coverage available to him in the event of a mechanical breakdown. At the conclusion of each month, the service contract expired and a new coverage term began when the credit card was debited. On May 20, 2016 at 9:55 a.m., a mechanical claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle advising that the vehicle was experiencing left caliper issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On that same date at 10:32 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left caliper for $35.87. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.3 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $78.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $13.87, and we could supply the part as stated above; however, we would be unable to assist with labor since the labor cost was less than the deductible or pay $13.87 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. During that telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer's vehicle. After the repair facility provided CARS with a final invoice indicating that the repairs were complete, CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $13.87 via credit card on May 20, 2016, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed. By the customer's signature under Acceptance to Terms, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated on the PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION FORM at RECURRING PAYMENT TERMS: “You have purchased month-to-month coverage. A NEW contract will begin monthly, starting one month from the Effective Date on Your CARS I.D. card, and will continue, as long as payment is received, until Your vehicle reaches 200,000 miles or You notify CARS, at least seven days prior to your next contract beginning that You wish to end Your coverage. You are responsible for Your method of payment. If CARS attempts to process payment from the account list below, and the charge is either declined or returned for Non-Sufficient Funds, a new contract will NOT begin and Your coverage will terminate at the end of Your current term. CARS is not responsible for overdraft fees. CARS will charge Your account up to seven days prior to Your next contract beginning. If You do not notify CARS in writing, when Your car reaches 200,000 miles or You no long own the vehicle additional payments are non-refundable. CARS may charge the account listed below to correct any errors in processing." Accordingly, based upon the Recurring Payment Terms, the customer purchased a new service contract each month that the credit card on file was debited. Therefore, the customer had service contract coverage available for his vehicle in the event of a mechanical breakdown. Additionally, it states in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement parts, we used the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $13.87 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the left caliper. The repair facility advised us that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer’s choice. Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. Therefore, CARS authorized and paid the May 20, 2016 mechanical claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. The customer states in his complaint that he is requesting a full refund for all the months which he paid for service contract coverage. The customer's service contract states at "4. (b) CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: This Service Contract is non-refundable." Here, as stated above the customer’s vehicle was covered during the coverage periods of December 2016, January 2016, February 2016, March 2016, April 2016 and May 2016, in the event of a mechanical breakdown. At the conclusion of each month, the coverage lapsed and a new service contract began, after we debited the credit card on file pursuant to the Recurring Payment Terms of the customer's Payment Authorization Form. Therefore, based upon all the above information, the customer is not entitled to any refund. As stated above, CARS is in receipt of the customer's cancellation, therefore, CARS will no longer debit the customer's credit card and he will not have any further coverage through CARS. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,

Review: My cars have been in the shop since wednesday for an issue that is suppose to covered under warranty well after I paid out off my own pocket to get it towed to the shop and the shop went back and fourt with cars protection they finally got them to cover the issue and told the shop that the part would be here friday. Well since I didnt get offered a rental so I been using somebody else car since I was promised my car would be ready friday well I called the warranty company to see where the part was and it was like I was bothering them. And the shop where my car at havent heard from them either. I also offer to by the part myself and they said I would have to pay everything myself. After this situation im canceling this serviceDesired Settlement: Waive deductible for inconvenient and not delivering on their word

Business

Response:

July 25, 2016 VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2007 NISSAN MAXIMA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] 1 am in receipt of your letter dated July 25, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 15, 2016 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 19, 2016 (the attached "Service Contract”). On July 20, 2016 at 4:06 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing alternator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 20, 2016 at 4:20 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the alternator for $144.49. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $120.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $164.49, and we could supply the alternator as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $164.49 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility stated that they would advise CARS of the customer’s decision. On July 20, 2016 at 4:54 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer had found an alternator for $115.00. CARS advised that after the customer properly submitted an invoice for the customer supplied alternator and labor, CARS would issue a check to the customer for $135.00. On July 20, 2016 at 4:59 p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to ship the alternator to the repair facility. CARS then advised that the part would have to be ordered on July 21, 2016 since the deadline to place an order on July 20, 2016 had past. On July 21, 2016 at 8:49 a.m., CARS gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On July 21, 2016 at 4:15 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the part was ordered in the morning and it would take two business days for the supplied alternator to arrive at the repair facility. The supplied alternator arrived at the repair facility on July 25, 2016 at 10:05 a.m. Please see the attached FedEx tracking sheet By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. It was the customer's decision to have CARS ship the alternator to the repair facility. The rental benefits of the customer's service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered component (alternator) was 2.0 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; which would not entitle the customer to any rental reimbursement since the repair to his vehicle should take less than 8.0 hours. As CARS stated to the repair facility the alternator took two business days for delivery of the alternator. The customer's Service Contract states: "TOWING We will reimburse up to a maximum of $50.00, if proof of towing is provided with an authorize claim." Here, the customer is entitled to a reimbursement of $50.00 for the towing of his vehicle to a repair facility since his claim has been authorized by CARS. The customer must submit his towing receipt to CARS from the towing company and submit to CARS with his contact identification number for reimbursement. The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 19, 2017 or when the odometer registers 140,820 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Our dealership has worked with CARS Protection Plus for over three years. They offer a variety of warranty plans at a competitive price. We look at the long term benefits for our customers and have been pleased with the results of claims processes through the warranty department.

Review: I purchased a warranty whenever I bought my truck the warranty was for the suspension Powertrain and engine. The motor blew up on the engine it's just covered by warranty of had the truck for less than a year and they told me my truck wasn't covered because the tire size that was on the truck whenever I purchased it voided the warranty so I spent $1,000 for nothing and they said they're going to prorate my warrantyDesired Settlement: For my truck to be fixed

Business

Response:

July 8, 2016VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com website[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 CHEVY 1500 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated July 5, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on February 26, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (48 Months/55,000 Miles] and the same was approved by CARS on March 16, 2015. (See Attached Service Contract)On June 30, 2016 at 1:58 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing steer box, head gaskets and knock sensor issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.During the processing of the claim, on July 1, 2016 at 11:33 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was altered/modified with oversized tires. The repair facility further advised that the steering box, knock sensor and head gaskets had failed.On July 1, 2016 at 11:52 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he purchased his vehicle with oversized tires.On July 1, 2016 at 1:35 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the customer’s vehicle was altered/modified with oversized tires. CARS further that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract the customer's Service Contract was now cancelled and CARS would issue a prorated refund with a signed release from the customer.On July 1, 2016, CARS mailed the attached letter and Service Contract Coverage Cancellation & Release to the customer advising that his Service Contract was now void and upon CARS’ receipt of the executed Service Contract Coverage Cancellation & Release, a refund would be sent to his lienholder or the selling dealer.By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It is stated under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(d): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles modified or altered from the original manufacturer's specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Here, on July 1, 2016, the repair facility advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the customer’s vehicle was equipped with oversized tires. On July 1, 2016, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the oversized tires were on the vehicle when he purchased it.The customer’s service contract also states at Paragraph 2(g): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall void the service contract." However, since the customer’s vehicle was already altered/modified when the customer purchased it, CARS will refund a prorated amount of the monies that CARS received from the selling dealership for the cost of the customer's Service Contract.Here, we assumed that the customer’s vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on March 16, 2015. It was not until the processing of the June 30, 2016 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle. The alterations/modifications of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications.CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealer, repair facilities and customers since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Here, on July 1, 2016, the repair facility advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the customer's vehicle was altered/modified with oversized tires. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer's Service Contract is now cancelled; therefore, the customer no longer has service coverage under any of CARS service contracts.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely, Jason [redacted]

Review: I have a contract with this company an day under they agree my motor went out an the truck an my truck not a year old day wont me to pay for a motorDesired Settlement: all I wont is for my motor to be fix

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2007 CHRYSLER ASPEN VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated June 3, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 13, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 4, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). On May 18, 2016 at 1:17 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On May 20, 2016 at 3:01 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility. The repair facility advised that the customer’s vehicle was running rough and coolant was found in the oil. The repair facility found the transmission, engine, lower radiator hose, transfer case, rack, pinion and power steering to be leaking. The repair facility also found silicone debris from a previous improper repair in the radiator. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS further advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verily the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. On May 20, 2016 at 3:34 p.m., an owner of the vehicle telephoned CARS to question why her vehicle needed to be torn down if the repair facility advised that an engine was needed for the repair of her vehicle. CARS advised that we required tear-down to the point of component failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. The customer then ended the telephone call. On May 20, 2016 at 3:50 p.m., the co-owner of the vehicle telephoned CARS to advise that she had a bumper to bumper Service Contract and did not have to pay any monies towards the repair of her vehicle except the deductible. CARS advised that her Service Contract was not bumper to bumper and we assist with the repair of our contract holder's vehicles. The customer than advised that she wanted CARS to pay for any diagnostic costs she had incurred because she wants to drive her vehicle out of the repair facility.On May 31, 2016 at 2:24 p.m., an owner of the vehicle called to inquiry why the vehicle needed to be torn down and if CARS paid to reassemble the vehicle. CARS advised that we required tear-down to the point of component failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS advised that we do not pay for any costs related to diagnostics including teardown and reassembly of her vehicle. On June 1, 2016 at 1:46 p.m., the co-owner of the vehicle advised CARS that the repair facility does not want to tear down her vehicle and is charging her $385.00 to put her vehicle back together and for the checking fluids. CARS advised the customer that we would telephone the repair facility. On June 3, 2016, CARS left two (2] voice messages for the repair facility to return our telephone call. On June 3, 2016 at 11:32 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer gave her permission to the repair facility to do diagnostics on her vehicle when the vehicle was brought to the repair facility. On June 3, 2016 at 12:06 p.m., the co-owner of the vehicle advised CARS that she did not give her permission for her vehicle to be checked and she is not responsible for any costs. CARS advised the co-owner that the repair facility stated that she gave her permission for diagnostics to be performed on her vehicle. By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c]: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure. Under the customer’s Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper] coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage as stated in the above paragraphs. CARS cannot move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle until the repair facility provides us with the cause of failure to the engine extent of damages to the customer's vehicle. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer is responsible for all charges related to teardown/diagnostics; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the cost of reassembly of her engine. Any teardown/diagnostic costs are between the customer and the repair facility. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contract my office.Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted]General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted]Date: Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:26 PMSubject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com serving Western Pennsylvania regarding complaint #[redacted].To: Revdex.com [redacted]

This is Mrs. [redacted] regarding to my 07 Chrysler truck. They are charging me $385 to release my truck without my consent to look at the truck without calling me telling me what is going on and my insurance told this man named Chris to look at it and Chris did it now he wants me to pay $385 in order for me to release my truck. I do not have $385 they should've called me, I want them to pay for my truck and to get it fixed. Chris said water got into my motor they want me to pay to break the motor in car protection, his name is Jim.

We have been doing business with C.A.R.S. Protection Plus Inc. for over 10 years and we have been extremely pleased with their service and response time. We include a 3 month/4500 mile Power-train Warranty on all of our vehicles that are eligible.We sell approx. 25 units per month and I can think of only 2 times that a claim has been denied by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus. They have area Representative that is currently serving our account ( Bill C[redacted] ) is very helpful and informational. Mr. C[redacted] always makes a once month call to our dealership and makes for sure on how everything is going. Again we are extremely please with C.A.R.S. Protection and we have no plans to change warranty companies. [redacted]

Sales Manager

I purchased this 4 yr comprehensive warranty for a van I bought last year. I need a new master cylinder and have been to a few places local to me and called a few more, none of whom accept the warranty. I called CARS protection plus and asked for a recommendation for somewhere to take it. They said they do not recommend places. So I asked for a list of places that accept their warranty. They do not have a list. I'm waiting for a call back from their cancellation dept.

Review: 30 days ago today, my 2008 Nissan Rogue broke down. My vehicle has been at a Nissan dealership for 27 days of that. It needs a rear end differential and a drive shaft. The employee that is assigned to my claim insisted the differential be torn down to determine the cause of the failure. The dealership said this is not an industry standard because there are no internal components. The insurance company (C.A.R.S.) insisted. The agent rarely returned phone calls from me and the dealership. When I spoke with an "alleged" supervisor, I was treated very rudely. He was extremely condescending. It was about 10 days before someone finally looked it up (at the insistence of the dealership employee) and agreed it did not need to be torn down. To date, according to the dealership, the only part the dealership has received from the insurance company is the differential. I am a rural mail carrier and I need my vehicle to work. My husband drives a Ford F-150 and has been driving me when he can so I can do my job. The fuel expenses have been absolutely outrageous! I am at my wits end with these people!Desired Settlement: For all of this frustration and inconvenience, and due to the added expenses for fuel, I would like to have any and all fees waived once the work is completed. i.e. the $100 deductible, sales tax and overage amounts for labor costs not covered in the policy.

Business

Response:

June 29, 2016 VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2008 NISSAN ROGUE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated June 24, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On December 21, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on December 24, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract three (3) claims have been opened as follows: First Claim: On April 12, 2016 at 3:29 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right lower ball Joint, and tie rod issues. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility. On April 18, 2016, CARS paid CARS paid the repair facility $5.00 via check pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract towards the cost of labor. On May 5, 2016, CARS paid our parts supplier $97.69 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of Your Service Contract for a rear front low control arm. The claim was then closed. Second Claim: On April 19, 2016 at 10:24 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility. On April 22, 2016, CARS paid CARS paid the repair facility $2,131.00 via check pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract for a repair facility supplied transmission and the cost of labor. The claim was then closed. Third Claim: On June 8, 2016 at 11:16 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential, driveshaft, lower front control arms, and input shaft seal issues. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility. On June 8, 2016 at 11:40 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had no power when pressing on the gas. The repair facility advised that the check engine light was displayed; however, the repair facility had not yet found the reason. The repair facility further advised that the transmission output shaft seal was leaking, transmission fluid was low, issues with the rear differential assembly driveshaft, lower front control arm ball joints, rear differential fluid was full of metal and the drive shaft had failed. On June 8, 2016 at 2:59 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility to get back to us with the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle. On June 8, 2016 at 4:17 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she wanted to move forward with the repairs without performing tear-down. CARS advised that pursuant to her Service Contract, CARS needed her vehicle torn down to find the cause of failure and to verify the extent of damage to her vehicle in order to move forward with the mechanical claim. On June 8, 2016 at 4:36 p.m., a claims manager reviewed the customer’s Service Contract with her and advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, the customer was responsible for all tear-down charges. The claims manager advised the customer that, since several leaks were found from the rear differential seals, a tear-down of her vehicle was necessary to find the cause of failure, since seals and damage caused by leaking seals were not covered under her Service Contract. On June 9, 2016 at 1:20 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the viscus coupler on the rear differential had failed. The repair facility further advised that the differential fluid was very dark. The repair facility further advised that the drive shaft was damaged by the u-joint having excessive play. The right front control arm ball joint assembly was installed using an improper bolt to secure the ball joint to the wheel hub. On June 9, 2016 at 2:05 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we could move forward with the repair of the rear differential, left front ball joint and u-joints. CARS advised that since the right control arm and ball joint failed as a result of an improper bolt, CARS was not able to assist with that repair. CARS further advised that we were waiting on pricing from our suppliers before we could quote the amount we could authorize for the repairs. On June 10, 2016 at 9:13 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the rear differential for $500.00, the drive shaft for $250.00 and the left ball joint for $27.00. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $10.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 7.4 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $518.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,205.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $418.00 towards labor and $10.00 for the fluids needed for the repair or pay $1,205.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility was to notify CARS of the customer's decision. On June 13, 2016 at 4:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like CARS to supply the parts, with the exception of the ball joints, to the repair facility for the repair of her vehicle. On June 14, 2016 at 9:13 a.m., CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. CARS then gave the repair facility an estimated arrival time of June 20, 2016 for the supplied parts. On June 20, 2016 at 1:48 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied parts had not been delivered. CARS was advised by our supplier that the parts had been shipped from two (2) different facilities and were now scheduled to arrive by June 27, 2016. On June 28, 2016 at 9:32 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that all the supplied parts were at the repair facility. On June 29, 2016 at 1:48 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied parts have been installed in customer’s vehicle; however, the customer’s vehicle is going into limp mode. After pulling the transmission codes from the vehicle, the repair facility believes that the previous repair facility who installed the transmission missed the rear differential binding and that is what is causing the current transmission issues. CARS advised that the previous repair facility gave the transmission a 12 month/12,000 mile warranty on the repair; therefore, the customer must take her vehicle to the previous repair facility for the transmission issues (See attached). By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract she acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to have the parts supplied by CARS for the repairs needed for the June 8, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of her vehicle. The customer’s Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, the customer is not entitled to any reimbursement for any inconvenience caused by the loss of her vehicle; however, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to reimburse the customer in the amount of $175.00 towards her additional expenses caused by the shipping delay of the supplied parts for the June 8, 2016 claim. CARS will issue a check directly to the customer. CARS would like to point out here that we have no control over our supplier's shipping times and delays. When made aware of delays, CARS contacts our suppliers for updated information and will advise the repair facility of any changes in the delivery date. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.

Review: We purchased this company's warranty through the dealer in which we purchased the vehicle from for the sole purpose that we knew about the problems with the head gaskets on this motor (Ford diesel 6.0) and that it would cover it if they went. 3 months after purchase the head gaskets went, has been in the repair shop ever since (have made 4 car payments and not had the truck) and the company denied the claim. First they denied for carbon build up, said carbon is a non covered item and therefore wouldn't cover the blown head gaskets. I called the supervisor and the legal department and they reopened the claim. They requested the repair shop to remove the head gaskets and get a machine shop to measure warpage of the heads at our cost for the labor on the tear down. The repair shop called in the warpage measurements last week. The repair shop said there is nothing out of the ordinary with this claim, nothing that should not be covered. The warranty company then sent an independent adjuster out last Friday to take pictures of the truck torn apart. The independent adjuster even said that this particular company never covers anything, to not even take in any warranty jobs for CARS because they don't cover anything. I heard yesterday from the repair shop verbally that the adjuster at CARS called and denied the claim again, this time for the head bolts being stretched, and again, not a covered component and therefore wouldn't cover the head gaskets being blown. The repair shop argued with them, as they have never seen a head gasket failure without the head bolts stretching! They go hand in hand they told me. This is a joke and this product that the company sold us is not worth the paper it's written on. This repair should be covered 100% and then we want a refund on the warranty pro-rated - as we will never deal with them again. I am fully prepared to go to court if necessary, have filed a complaint with the Attorney General as well.Desired Settlement: Fully cover the repair and refund the cost of the warranty product pro-rated after, as it's a joke.

Business

Response:

PROTECTION PLUSAugust 8, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 FORD F250 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. Cook:I am in receipt of your letter dated July 19, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:CARS considers this matter now resolved.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Review: 1- customer representatives are not fully educated on the policies or contract information because I was given different information every time I called

2- The contract is not straight forward in what is covered and to what extent.

3-They have no desire to make their customer happy because I tried to come to some form of middle point and was told in so much words "this is what we offer you can either take it and leave it" and in another instance "sorry but you have to figure that out on your own"

4- base on what is listed on the contract they need to go in depth with thins so we the customer can choose whether or not to get the policy and not wait until you are in the contract before certain things are revealed to you.

5- they should put the customer satisfaction first which means they should try and do some negotiation on behalf of the customer with the mechanics so the customer feels like they care.

6- contract needs to to be revamp so the customer is aware of everything and the policy is not misleading.Desired Settlement: I would like to get some form of compensation for the time I have wasted in regards to trying and get my car repaired and to just get back to some form of normalcy without having to go through great lengths of inconvenience.

Business

Response:

July 7,2016VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com website[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2009 NISSAN ALTIMA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated July 5, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on April 19, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was approved by CARS on April 20, 2016 (See Attached Service Contract).On June 28, 2016 at 1:08 p.m., the customer advised CARS that the front passenger window was not working. CARS then advised the customer that window motor/switches are listed as covered components under his Service Contract. CARS then reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures with him.On June 29, 2016 at 11:54 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right front window switch issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 29, 2016 at 3:50 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the right front window was inoperable due to the failure of the window switch. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 29, 2016 at 3:52 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cost of their replacement for the right front window switch would be $62.23. CARS advised the repair facility that ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .3 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract paid $70.00 per hour for labor; therefore, total labor was $21.00. CARS advised that the claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. CARS then explained that the total value of the claim was less than the deductible; therefore, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the right front switch claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract,On June 29, 2016 at 4:04 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to inquire about the window switch claim. CARS then reviewed the claim with him in detail.On July 1, 2016 at 11:47 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they had made an error and the left main window switch had failed not the right main window switch. We went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the left main windowswitch for $150.82. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .3 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $21.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $71.82, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however, since the labor costs were less than the deductible, we were unable to assist with the cost of labor, or pay $71.82 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would telephone us with the customer’s decision.On July 1, 2016 at 1:10 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was unhappy with the claim allowance and that CARS quoted pricing for aftermarket parts. CARS reviewed the customer's Service Contract with him regarding parts and labor.On July 1, 2016 at 1:54 p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to supply the left main window switch. CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, the customer’s vehicle must stay at the repair facility until the repair was completed. The repair facility advised that they would call us back.On July 1, 2016 at 2:50 p.m., the customer called CARS to question if his vehicle had to stay at the repair facility until the repair was completed. CARS advised that the customer’s vehicle would have to stay at the repair facility until the repair was complete and we were unable to assist with rental costs. The customer then began to yell using profanities until the telephone call was ended by CARS.On July 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to get the status of the customer’s claim. The repair facility advised that the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility.By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (Q: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $71.82 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the main window switch. The repair facility advised us that the customer would like the supplied part shipped to the repair facility. The customer's Service Contract states at 2 (k): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim”. Here, all claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicles will have the $100.00 deductible will be applied.The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (a): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: ... The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete.” Here during the processing of the June 29, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS was willing to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle, however, the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility.For all the reasons stated above, CARS is not able to offer any assistance with the June 29, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.If the customer would like to utilize his Service Contract towards the repair of the main window switch, a new claim must be opened on behalf of his vehicle. CARS will process the claim in the same manner as the June 29, 2016 claim opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.The customer has Service Contract coverage through October 20, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

Review: I purchased a 2005 Jeep Cherokee Aug/Sept 2015- along with the 2 yr extended warranty - Value Limited coverage. Since then I have taken my vehicle in for service twice for repairs and has not been resolved. 1st claim was 10/09/2015 Meineke for the check engine light and denied because the warranty did not cover the catalytic converter replacement even though the oil leak was coming from the engine. That cost came out of pocket. 2nd claim was 03/11/2016 Midas for the check engine light which the mechanic informed me that was an engine problem and once they contacted CARS customer service they were instructed to take the engine apart which they do not do at their shop. I had search for a location that specializes in engine repairs/ replaced and on 03/29/2016 I then took it to [redacted] which they are very familiar with engines and have received outstanding reviews for their quality of work. CARS customer service was contacted and informed of the problem and what needed to be repaired. And instead of CARS given them the ok to complete the repair which is covered under the warranty they asked them to take the engine apart to confirm. Mind you the breaking down of the engine is not covered under the warranty and I would have to pay out of pocket 1500-3000. [redacted] argued with the customer service rep and informed them that it was not necessary for taking those steps if they know what the problem is. [redacted] then pulled PCV baffle and clean-renew valve and air filter which was recommended by CARS. They also performed engine cleanse treatment and had us monitor the oil consumption every 500 miles. This vehicle isn't driven as much because of the fear I have of it back firing and the bad smell that enters the vehicle while driving. 07/26/2016 I had enough and took the vehicle back to [redacted] because the check engine was back on and the smell and smoke has gotten worst. CARS was contacted again and was informed again that the piston needs to be replaced and again they want them to take the engine apart and the cost comes out of my pocket. CARS will not approve the piston repairs until they go through these obstacles first. The piston and PCV was the reason I had to replace the catalytic converter and that was close to 500.00. Cleaning the PCV baffle was 470.00. According to the warranty Engine- lubricated parts contained within the engine block is covered so why are they giving me a hard time with getting this repair approved. The warranty covers replacement of the engine but they want me to spend close to 4000.00 out of pocket which that's the cost of a new engine. I have even taken my vehicle to a certified engine restoration mechanic which is hard to find to assure the work is done correct.Desired Settlement: I am asking CARS to approve the repairs required and covered by warranty without having to take the unnecessary steps they are asking [redacted] to take and for me to spend. They should accept the diagnosis mechanics make when we (consumers) take our vehicles in for service. I am also asking for the refund for the cost spent on both service dates since the piston/ engine part was the cause.

Business

Response:

[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2005 JEEP GR CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated August 1, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 21, 2015.First Claim: On March 11, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On March 11, 2016 at 3:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they do not perform internal engine repairs. CARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, the customer must move her vehicle. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On March 29, 2016 at 1:31 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.On March 29, 2016 at 1:44 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had codes for the catalytic converter and had used ten (10) quarts of oil in 3,000 miles. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear- down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.On April 1, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they cleaned the PVC system and advised the customer to drive her vehicle to see if the issues were still present. CARS advised the repair facility to open a new claim if the customer returned her vehicle. The claim was then closed.Third Claim: On July 29, 2016 at 4:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS thecustomer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 29, 2016 at 4:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine is using three (3) quarts of oil in 6,500 miles. The repair facility further advised that the engine was smoking and the catalytic converter code was displayed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear- down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.At this time CARS is waiting for the repair facility to let us know the cause of failure and the extent of damage so that we may move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.By the customer's signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIMPROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.The Service Contract states under Terms and 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS." The Service Contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun.” and "If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by CARS, an authorization number will be issued for the repair..." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the Service Contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. The repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle never provided CARS with its findings or an estimate prior to the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, in the customer's Revdex.com complaint, she is requesting a refund for repairs; however, CARS’ claim procedures were not followed; therefore, CARS is unable to refund the customer for any repairs performed by the repair facility.Under the customer's Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform Mr. [redacted] what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage as stated in the above paragraphs. CARS cannot move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle until the repair facility provides us with the cause of failure to the engine and extent of damages to the customer’s vehicle. As it currently stands, the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle is neither approved nor denied by CARS.The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 21, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Limited Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.Jason P. [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

Review: When I purchased their plan through the dealership I was notified that I would receive more options within a few days for protection of a car I bought. It arrived 3 weeks later almost to the cut off of 30 days. I attempted to call them at that point to discuss the issues. I had to leave 5 calls and today on call number 6 they answered and I was told basically there is nothing they can do or will do. They also stated that they called me 5 times but my line was busy. They do have 2 phone numbers for me, my email and address to send information. This was unacceptable since they did not send out information as was told they would.Desired Settlement: I would like my money refunded.

Business

Response:

PROTECTION PLUSOctober 7, 2016VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER VIN (Last 8)[redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated September 30, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On August 24, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 29, 2016 (the attached "Service Contract"]. The customer's Service Contract will expire on November 29,2016.After reviewing the customer's consumer complaint, in an effort to amicably resolve this matter, CARS will issue the customer a check for $100.00 which is the amount she paid for her Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,JPM/jmm

Our bearings in the hub locked up the rotar causing the tire to fall off the vehicle damaging many other parts on our dodge 1500. This company refuses to pay for anything more than the differential and rotar. $1400 only of the over $3000 repair bill. This despite the fact that 90% of the parts damaged by the failure are also covered by the warranty. They refuse to pay for the tear down of the vehicle despite a federal judge ruling they cannot force customers to pay for such. They're only paying 70 an hour in labor when no shop in the United States charges this low. Our out of pocket total should have been less than $300 bucks but we are out $1600+. As a cherry on top, the condescending people at cars protection plus insist that our 4x4 pickup does not have a hub, that they will not pay for parts damaged by the failure of another covered parts failure, they are almost impossible to reach by telephone by both ourselves and the repair shop, and now they are slow walking the final approval of the shops invoice; thereby preventing us from paying our 65% of a bill (that should have been no more than 10%) and recieving our already repaired truck. This is the worst company we have ever dealt with. They are a scam. We are tremendously grateful to the law firm preparing our case against this fraudulent company.

Review: I had bought a used vehicle with a protection plan that the dealership offered from Cars Protection Plus. I had owned the vehicle for about four months when it started experiencing problems. Upon taking it in to a local auto mechanic, I learned that the vehicle had a few major issues and that Cars Protection Plus would not cover the cost due to "the car being in a previous accident". I do not know why they would approve a protection plan for a vehicle that had been in a previous wreck if they knew they would not cover any of the issues that might arise.

I picked up my vehicle from the local auto mechanic and traded it in on a new vehicle. I then called Cars Protection Plus to tell them I no longer owned the vehicle covered through them and that I would like to get my money (pro-rated) for the time and mileage not used. They informed me that after 20 days they issue no refunds. I also asked if I could transfer the plan to my new vehicle and was told no.

Conclusion, I am left with a protection plan that I do not own the vehicle for, cannot transfer it to a new vehicle or person and cannot receive a pro-rated refund for the time and mileage not used.Desired Settlement: refund for time and mileage not used

Business

Response:

VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 TOYOTA TUNDRA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated, September 21, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On March 30, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on April 25, 2016 (the attached Service Contract).On September 8, 2016 at 1:34 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing steer knuckle, lower ball joint and rear line issues. The repair facility advised CARS that the issues with the vehicle may be the result of an accident. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.On September 8, 2016 at 2:04 p.m., the repair facility advised a CARS' claims adjustor that the vehicle was driven to the repair for an alignment; however, the customer's vehicle had been in an accident that bent parts on the right and left side of the vehicle. CARS advised that the customer’s Service Contract did not cover any damage resulting from an accident. The claim was then closed.On September 8, 2016 at 2:10 p.m., CARS reviewed the mechanical claim and the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract with the customer. The customer advised that he wished to cancel his Service Contract and was then transferred to the refund department.On September 8, 2016 at 2:15 p.m., CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract.On September 15, 2016 at 3:33 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he no longer had his vehicle and would like a refund of his Service Contract. CARS again advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract. The customer was then transferred to the office manager.On September 19, 2016 at 2:34 p.m., CARS’ office manager advised the customer that he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract since his vehicle was not declared a total loss or repossessed.By the customer’s signature on his Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1 (1); ‘‘“COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage from flood, fire and/or accident, regardless of the cause.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle advised CARS on September 21, 2016 that the customer's vehicle had been in an accident which caused the bending of parts on the right and left side of his vehicle.Furthermore, the customer states in his complaint that he is requesting a refund of $1,495.00; however, this is not the amount that CARS received for the cost of the customer's Service Contract. Dealers have the right to mark up the cost of service contracts. The selling dealer that sold the customer the Service Contract did mark up and make a profit on the cost of the Service Contract.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 5(b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated."CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in the state where the customer's vehicle was purchased to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of his Service Contract. Therefore, pursuant to his Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund.The Service Contract also states at 4(a): "SERVICE CONTRACT PROVISIONS: The ServiceContract is transferable, by the original purchaser of the contract to the subsequent owner of the vehicle provided CARS receives the transfer fee of $99.00 prior to the sale of the vehicle. CARS will not transfer the contract to another vehicle or to a business. The transferred Service Contract will remain in effect for the remainder of the original period.” Here, the customer’s Service Contract is not eligible for a transfer since the customer has traded the above-referenced vehicle.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely, Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

WHAT A SCAM this is. NOTHING is covered under this 'protection plan' if you have not purchased this then don't. Waste of money they cover NOTHING!!! I want my money back but they wont even consider it. When the dealership called them to find out if the problem my car had was covered they stated they answered in seconds that its not a covered item. Even the JEEP car dealership said its a scam! Their mission is to take your money and run!

Review: In Feb of this year, I purchased a used vehicle with an extended warranty from CARS Protection Plus. In April, I had to have my vehicle serviced and according to the copy of the contract provided, the parts and labor should have been covered. However, the denied the claim, costing me $184.00. Advance now to April 20. I began experiencing transmission issues with my vehicle. I had the vehicle towed to the dealership for repair. Again, according to the contract, the repair should have been covered 100% minus my $100.00 deductible. However, when the dealer contacted CARS Protection Plus, the warranty company stated that they would either send a used transmission with a 400 mile or 8 day warranty( time had expired by the prior to the transmission arriving and being installed)and pay $380 or pay a total of $1168.00. Advance now to May 9. The transmission arrives and is installed, only to discover that there is no reverse gear, or it does not work. CARS PROTECTION PLUS was contacted, and they tried to [redacted] the issue off on their supplier. Advance in time to today, May 16. CARS PROTECTION PLUS contacted, and they advise that the replacement transmission is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow. While speaking with Ed, the (representative from CARS PROTECTION PLUS) I asked if there would be or could be any further assistance as I have been with out my vehicle for almost 4 weeks, they are repairing my vehicle with used parts and there now is no warranty.Desired Settlement: As of now, this repair is going to cost me $1300. I feel that this warranty company should be responsible for this remaining balance as compensation for used parts being installed as well as it taking 3 1/2 weeks to complete a 8 hr job.

Business

Response:

May 18, 2016VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com website[redacted]RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2002 CHEVY SILVERADO 1500 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:1 am in receipt of your letter dated May 17, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 5, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 5, 2016. The customer’s Service Contract expired on May 8, 2016; however, CARS will pay for the transmission repair pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract since a transmission claim was opened prior to the expiration date of his Service Contract.First Claim: On March 9, 2016 at 2:58 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing purge valve issues. CARS advised the repair facility that the purge valve was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.Second Claim: On April 25, 2016 at 1:19 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS further advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to perform a limited teardown on the customer's vehicle to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. CARS advised that if the limited teardown does not provide the cause of failure then a full teardown would be necessary. CARS further advised that the customer is responsible for all diagnostic and tear-down costs for his vehicle.On April 27, 2016 at 10:56 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they had found ground metal and clutch material in the transmission pan. CARS then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $700.00. Demand labor guide stated that the repair should take 7.8 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $468.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,068.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $368.00 towards labor or pay $1,068.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.On April 27, 2016 at 10:56 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he was unhappy with the amount CARS was authorizing for the repair of his vehicle. CARS reviewed the transmission claim with the customer. CARS further advised that pursuant to his Service Contract, CARS could only assist with $60.00 per hour for labor and the repair facility chosen by the customer charged $120.00 per hour for labor. The customer advised that he would telephone the repair facility with his decision.On April 29, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to ship the transmission to the repair facility. Later that same day, CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repair to the customer's vehicle.On May 10, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied transmission had no reverse. CARS advised that we would notify our supplier of the problem.On May 11, 2016 at 1:34 p.m., CARS advised the customer that we were checking on the status of the transmission. CARS also reviewed our rental benefits with the customer and advised that he did not qualify for rental benefits pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.On May 16, 2016 at 9:44 p.m., our supplier advised CARS that the supplied transmission would arrive on May 17, 2016.On May 16, 2016 at 2:36 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the supplied transmission should arrive on May 17, 2016. CARS advised the customer that pursuant to his Service Contract, CARS did not assist with any time lost or inconvenience caused by the loss of his vehicle.The supplied transmission was delivered to the repair facility on May 16, 2016 at 2:55 p.m.By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the customer chose to have CARS supply the transmission to the repair facility for the repair of his vehicle.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have.” CARS has no control over our suppliers shipping dates or errors in shipping; however we do have an obligation to the customer to ensure that we make every effort to ensure that the customer’s vehicle is repaired as quickly as possible. As stated above are supplied parts are to be tested by our suppliers; however, the supplied transmission was not working properly when installed into customer’s vehicle. Here, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is waiving the $100.00 deductible for the transmission claim.It is stated at Paragraph 2(C): 'PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: The Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: fl) this application is_received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and f31 approved bv CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase. This Service Contract will last for the time period or mileage indicated whichever occurs first, so long as You own the vehicle. The customer’s service contract expired on May 8, 2016; therefore, since the claim was opened prior to the expiration of the customer's Service Contract, CARS will assist with the transmission claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. However, the supplied transmission will not have coverage beyond once the transmission claim is closed.The rental benefits of the customer’s service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered components (transmission) was 7.8 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; which would not have entitled the customer any reimbursement towards rental expenses. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS will issue the customer a check for $200.00 which represents additional eight (8) days that it took for a second supplied transmission to arrive at the repair facility.The customer Service Contract states: "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components.” And under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless offailure." Here, the customer refers to a claim opened in April; however, the only claim opened prior to the April 25, 2016 claim was on March 9, 2016 for purge valve issues. The purge valve is not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract.The customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. CARS apologizes for any inconvenience that the delay in the arrival of second supplied transmission has caused the customer. Although CARS had no control over the shipping time of the supplied parts or the failure of the first supplied transmission, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is paying the customer for eight (8) days of rental benefits and waiving the $100.00 deductible.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Review: On July 9th of 2015, I purchased a vehicle warranty from cars protection plus. It was the premium warranty I was charged for, and told it would cover anything I needed, paying over $900 dollars. The vehicle currently has an issue with the water pump and three transmission lines- work which will cost an additional 900 dollars, yet the protection plan will only cover $69. $69 dollars is only covering half the part cost of the water pump. How do you cover HALF of a part? I didn't pay you crooks for half of the premium, did I? I tried contacting the company just prior to 5pm, did not receive an answer, then called again 10 minutes later to get an automated closed at 5 message.Desired Settlement: It's incredulous that you cover half a part, especially when the work needed is not menial repair. It's not like I'm requesting you replace tires or something of typical maintenance. Also your consumer login could not be more useless, it gives little to no detail of what the contract entails.

Business

Response:

VIA: Revdex.comRE: CUST: [redacted]VEHICLE: 2008 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO: [redacted] YOUR CASE NO: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]1 am in receipt of your letter dated June 16, 2016, regarding the above-referenced vehicle and respond as follows: Our records indicate that on June 3, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle from [redacted] On that same day, the customer also applied for a Value Plus service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Service Contract on July 9, 2015. (See attached Service Contract).On June 15, 2016 at 3:07 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission line, radiator hose and water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 15, 2016, at 3:24 p.m., after again reviewing our claim procedures with the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the water pump for $43.12. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $126.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $69.12, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $26.00 towards labor or pay $69.12 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice.Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, CARS will pay the repair facility a total of $69.12 when a proper invoice is submitted to us for payment.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, oraftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above, the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $69.12 towards the repair of her choice or having CARS supply the water pump. The repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of her choice.It is stated in the customer’s Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS:COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” Here, the transmission lines radiator hoses are not listed on the customer's Service Contract; therefore, these components are not covered under her Service Contract. The transmission lines and the radiator hoses and any labor associated with the replacement of these components are the responsibility of the customer.For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to provide any further assistance with the ]une 15, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 9, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contract my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmm

Review: I purchased a 2005 Nissan Maxima in November 2015. I had also purchased the warranty the dealership offered, which was Cars Protection Plus. March 2016 I started having problems that led me to believe the transmission was going bad. When I took it to the repair shop, I have them my warranty card and thought all would be good. The mechanic called me about a week later and informed me it was the wiring harness, a part NOT covered in my warranty. Confused, I looked at the contract and there was no where on the paper that had made me think they would not cover this part. But fine, I go ahead and tell them to start the work, rented a car (which I was also informed was only covered if the shop was working on a covered component), and preceded to await the return of my used (but almost brand new to me) car. I pay over $1,000 to have the wiring harness put in, Cars paid nothing for it. So I think all is well. However, when the very nice, patient mechanic returned my many phone calls, he informed me that the transmission was going to need looked at as well. At this point, I'm without my car for over a month and without enough saved up to rent for longer: I am furious and close to broke. Low and behold, Cars finally helps me out here--by making me pay almost $400 for the "new" transmission. The first transmission that was sent by Cars could not be out into my 2005 Nissan Maxima, for someone had cut a part of the wire that caused it to be completely useless to the repair shop. The second transmission was missing the third gear. So here I am, two months later, still no car and waiting on Cars to send the repair shop a THIRD replacement transmission. Although I am almost certain nothing will come of this and I will not be compensated for anything, I do hope that Cars will change their contract to mislead less people into the tangled mess I am in. This warranty does not give you peace of mind.

Business

Response:

VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com websiteRE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2005 NISSAN MAXIMA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated May 25, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 23, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on November 25, 2015.First Claim: On April 4, 2016 at 9:24 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing wiring harness issues. CARS advised the repair facility that the wiring harness was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.Second Claim: On May 4, 2016 at 11:19 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On May 4, 2016 at 12:05 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing shifting problems. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down the customer's vehicle to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer is responsible for all diagnostic and tear-down costs for his vehicle. The repair facility advised that they would contact CARS with their findings.During the processing of the claim, it was determined that the transmission had failed. On May 6, 2016 at 4:23 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the replacement of the transmission with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1,250.00. CARS could assist with the cost of fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $48.00. ProDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 6.2 hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $434.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,632.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $382.00 towards labor and fluids or pay $1,632.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.On May 9, 2016 at 9:18 a.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to ship the transmission to the repair facility. On May 10, 2016 at 10:35 a.m., CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repair to the customer's vehicle.On May 13, 2016 at 4:06 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied transmission was refused by the repair facility because the harness had been cut. CARS contacted our supplier to ship a replacement transmission.On May 20, 2016 at 11:29 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that that third gear was missing; however, no codes were showing on the transmission. CARS again contacted our supplier to ship a replacement transmission.On May 25, 2016 CARS attempted to reach the repair facility to check on the arrival of the supplied transmission; however, no one answered the telephone. The tracking information shows that the engine arrived on May 24, 2016.By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to have CARS supply the transmission to the repair facility for the repair of his vehicle.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, anyinconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have.” CARS has no control over our suppliers shipping dates or errors in shipping; however, we do have an obligation to the customer to ensure that we make every effort to ensure that the customer's vehicle is repaired as quickly as possible. Our supplied parts are to be tested by our suppliers; however, two (2) supplied transmission were found to have issues upon arrival at the repair facility. Here, due to the customer's inconvenience, CARS is waiving the $100.00 deductible for the transmission claim.The rental benefits of the customer's service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered components (transmission) was 6.2 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; which would not have entitled the customer any reimbursement towards rental expenses. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS will issue the customer a check for $275.00 which represents the additional eleven (11) days that it took for a supplied transmission to arrive at the repair facility.The customer Service Contract states: "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components." And under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, CARS was unable to assist with April 4, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle because the wiring harness is not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract.The customer’s Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.CARS apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the issues with the supplied transmissions. Although CARS had no control over the shipping time of the supplied parts or the failure of the supplied transmissions, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is paying the customer for eleven (11) days of rental benefits and will waive the $100.00 deductible.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General CounselJPM/jmmAttachments

Review: So I bought my car, a 2007 mercedes benz e350, from ** motors in April 2014 at ** Motor which the guy who sold me the car advise me to purchase a warranty that fully covers me. So I agreed and purchased the warranty, So I never used the warranty because the company refused to explain what it covers in terms that I can understand fast forward to March 2016 where problems with this car begin. I had my car towed to a mechanic at [redacted] motors and gave him a copy of the contract to explain what it covers. So he put the claim in with the company which was approved but little did I know that the parts this warranty like to use are used parts. That is something I wish I known from the beginning before purchasing. So they kept sending my mechanic bad transmissions to put in my car that he had to keep sending back. I already been with out my car for three months not to mention all the rentals I paid for which they only reimburse me for $25. So then my mechanic call me and tell me they only PAID him $640 So I called to find out exactly how much was paid out because its my car and I am the one who bought the warranty. the guy that is handling my claim was acting all secretive so I asked how much was paid and he said $1640 was authorized but they have yet to pay the mechanic. so I asked for some type of proof or statement of what will be paid out and I did not get a professional response.Desired Settlement: I want up to $300 rental reimbursement like my contract stated since the first 3 transmissions was not in good standing to replace in my car and I want a copy or notification of exactly what will be or has been paid to the mechanic that has my car or the full refund of what I paid for this faulty warranty

Business

Response:

VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 MERCEDES E350 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated July 29, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On April 18, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on April 22, 2014.On March 24, 2016 at 11:50 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the check engine light was displayed in her vehicle. The customer further advised that her vehicle would not accelerate. CARS then reviewed our claims procedures, rental benefits and coverage under her Service Contract.First Claim: On March 24, 2016 at 1:23 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility, advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission control module issues. CARS advised the repair facility that this was a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On April 21, 2016 at 3:58 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that her vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On April 21, 2016 at 4:14 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on April 20, 2016. The repair facility further advised that the transmission was not shifting and the check engine light was displayed. The repair facility advised that they could not clear the displayed codes. CARS questioned if it was an electronic issue and the repair facility advised that it was a torque converter or something in the transmission.On April 25, 2016 at 10:42 a.m., CARS reviewed the customer’s rental benefits with her.On April 29, 2016 at 12:59 p.m. the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of the April 21, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. CARS left a voice message for the customer advising that we were still waiting for the repair facility to get back to us with a cause of failure for her vehicle.On May 13, 2016 at 2:43 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of the April 21, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. CARS reviewed the claim with the customer.On May 26, 2016 at 1:56 p.m., thirty-five days after the claim was opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that they removed the transmission pan and found ground metal in the pan. The repair facility advised CARS that they would not know what the cause of failure was until the transmission was removed and torn down. We again advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear-down her vehicle to the point of component failure and contact CARS with their findings. We advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, she was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges.On June 2, 2016 at 2:55 p.m., CARS left a voice message for the customer advising her that that we were still waiting for the repair facility to get back to us with a cause of failure for her vehicle.On June 3, 2016 at 3:52 p.m., forty-three days after the claim was opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, the repair facility advised that the piston failed causing the transmission to lose pressure and the clutches to burn. The repair facility advised that they would fax an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle.On June 7, 2016 at 2:03 p.m., after reviewing the repair facility's estimate, CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1150.00. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $110.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 8.0 hours, including the time to change the valve body, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $480.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,640.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $380.00 towards labor or pay $1,640.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would supply the transmission; therefore, CARS would pay $1,640.00 toward the repair of the customer’s vehicle. On June 7, 2016 at 3:20 p.m., CARS provided an authorization number to begin the repair of the customer's vehicleOn June 22, 2016 at 11:13 a.m., CARS advised the customer to contact the repair facility regarding the status of her claim. CARS advised that we had supplied the repair facility with an authorization number and instructions on payment. CARS further advised that we have not received a final invoice for payment from the repair facility.On July 19, 2016 at 1:41 p.m., forty-two days after CARS gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin to repair the customer’s vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that they were having issues with their supplied transmission. The repair facility advised CARS that they had replaced three (3) transmissions in the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised that the pump had failed on the third transmission. The repair facility advised that they replaced the pump but a code for solenoid #2 displayed. The repair facility advised that they then replaced the solenoid #3 and the same code displayed. The repair facility then replaced all the solenoids and the valve body and continued to get the same code. The repair facility further advised that the vehicle’s computer was the problem. CARS computer is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract. CARS further advised that we covered lubricated parts contained within the transmission.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, the customer’s Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we used the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and was used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the repair facility advised us to pay the cash allowance to them.Your Service Contract states under Covered Components: "Rental Benefits The ServiceContract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." CARS authorized 8.0 hours of labor time for the April 21, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. N Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on July 5, 2016, the customer was paid for $25.00 via check no. 234688. CARS cannot assist with any additional vehicle rental costs since Mitchell OnDemand labor guide states the repair should take 8.0 hours.CARS would like to point out here that CARS had not supplied any transmissions for the repair of the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised CARS that they would take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of the customer's choice; therefore all three (3) transmissions have been supplied by the repair facility.The customer’s Service Contract states at 3 (g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: If it is determined that a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S., an authorization number will be issued for the repair. The authorization number is valid for 180 days from the dated issued. After 180 days the authorization number and claim are void. No invoices will be processed without a valid authorization number, your signature, repair facility's warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information."Here, the customer states in her letter that CARS has paid $640.00 towards the cost of the transmission. As stated above CARS has authorized $1,640.00 for the repair facilities replacement transmission and labor. As of today's date, July 29, 2016, CARS has not paid any monies to the repair facility. On June 22, 2016, CARS went over our instructions for payment with the repair facility. CARS has not received an invoice from the repair facility for payment. Upon receipt of a properly submitted invoice, CARS will pay the authorized amount to the repair facility.CARS’ service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform you what is specifically covered and your financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. The customer's Service Contract expired on April 21, 2016. The customer no longer has Service Contract coverage under any of CARS' service contract. No new claim may be opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.For all the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to provide any further assistance with the April 21, 2016 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. CARS is willing to pay the authorized amount to the repair facility for the repair of the customer's vehicle upon submission of a properly submitted invoice pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely, JPM/jmmEnclosure

Check fields!

Write a review of C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by adding a photo

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: AUTO WARRANTY PROCESSING SERVICE

Address: 4431 William Penn Hwy Ste 1, Murrysville, Pennsylvania, United States, 15668

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

www.carsprotectionplus.com


Add contact information for C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated