C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

HORRIBLE COMPANY ......NO USE IN HAVING IT ....they want a certified mechanic to diagnose problem THEN make them break it down and customer has to pay for that .....why???? Its a certified mechanic !!!!

Hello, I'm [redacted] from [redacted] Motors. Ive been associated with Cars Protection Plus for over 3 years and I have found them to be the most reasonably priced after market warranty company that also provides great service to my customers when claims are presented to them. They are always responsive and readily available when I have questions and concerns. My local sales rep is a DOLL. I would highly recommend this warranty company to any car dealer. Thank you.

Review: I have a service contract for the motor of the car I bought. I told them about the clicking noise the engine was making and they said to take it to the shop of my choice then contact them to let them know what the problem is. I took the car to the dealership and they contacted the warranty group.The Mitsubishi dealer said that there was a piece of metal in the motor and they didn't know where it came from, and they felt that this was what caused the motor to fail. They could not determine if the piston failed and destroyed the spark plug or if the spark plug failed and destroyed the piston. The porcelain part of the plug was not damaged, only the tip. All the other plugs in the car where fine but they chose this option to keep from paying for the motor.I also found out the this was not the only time that the dealer that I bought the car from has had this problem with the warranty people.Desired Settlement: I want to be reimbursed for the cost of the new motor and repairs that the warranty should have paid for.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 27, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 30, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 2, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). The customer’s service contract expired on May 3, 2014.

On March 18, 2014 at 9:58 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the engine. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised us that a spark plug electrode had broken off and damaged the top of the piston. The repair facility further advised that the compression loss in the cylinder was caused by the electrode breaking off the spark plug. On March 18, 2014 at 11:41 a.m., we advised the repair facility that CARS would not be able to assist with the engine claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. Here, a non­covered component (spark plug) caused damage to a covered component (engine).

On March 18, 2014 at 9:58 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the repair facility had torn down the vehicle and found foreign metal fragments on top of the piston. CARS advised that to move forward with the claim the foreign metal must be identified.

During the processing of the new information in regard to the engine claim, CARS received conflicting information from the repair facility as to the identification of the foreign metal on the piston. In a recorded telephone call on March 27, 2014, the repair facility informed us that they were not able to identify the foreign metal.

On March 27, 2014 at 5:07 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we would not be able to assist with the March 18, 2014 engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle due to the failure being caused by the ingestion of a foreign piece of metal into the engine and causing the failure to the engine.

On March 28, 2014 at 9:24 a.m., we advised the customer’s father that we were unable to assist with the engine claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. We further advised that a mechanical cause of failure was not shown by the repair facility.

Review: I bought a minivan in Feb. I was offered Cars warranty as protection in the event any of my powertrain components failed. I paid $200 in confidence that CARS would stand behind their promise. April 2nd my check engine light came on. My mechanic stated the oil had mixed with coolant and advised against driving it. We had the vehicle towed costing a total of $140. The shop called April 4th making a claim on the vehicle that the head gasket blew causing oil and coolant to mix. I was told its a very common problem with these motors and that is why they no longer make them. CARS stated this diagnosis was insufficient and they needed the cause of failure and extent of damage. I was advised to give shop permission to tear down engine to diagnose further and that I was responsible for charges. Costing an additional $440. The shop then found head gasket lifted on cylinder 4 causing coolant to seep into head, mixing with oil, scorned crank and ruined bottom end of motor. This still was not enough info. CARS wanted to know why it split and wanted warpage measurement. After supplying measurement I was told again it was not enough info. They seemingly requested a magical answer as to why the gasket split. At this point we were beyond frustrated as its been drawn on for over a month. Some on our part but mostly due to phone calls not being returned and from getting run around. My husband then spoke to [redacted] supervisor [redacted] who apologized for problems and agreed to pay the claim. The shop was even told they were going to pay out. Upon learning I already paid shop $1800 and work had already been done CARS denied the claim. They stated this was because there was no pre authorization for repairs. Im not sure what they expected us to do. We need a vehicle for work. Also we had already acquired $740 in rental car charges. Its unfathomable how they could agree to pay claim and literally 5 minutes later call back and say they no longer wish to help us out. The entire claims process was a joke. They give you the run around and say whatever they can to not have to pay out for their customers.Desired Settlement: I believe CARS should be responsible for paying this claim. As stated above they had already accepted liability for the claim. If I didn't do the work on the van I would've lost my job causing the van to get repossessed due to non payment and this wouldn't be an issue. I request the original settlement offered by CARS in the amount of $964 in addition to the mere $25 for rental reimbursement and the $50 for towing reimbursement adding to a total of $1039.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 9, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 4, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 10, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

Please be advised that on April 3, 2014 the customer advised CARS in two (2) separate telephone calls that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. A customer service representative reviewed the claim procedures and the service contract coverage in detail with the customer during both of those telephone calls.

On April 7, 2014 at 11:17 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine problems. During that same telephone call we went over in detail CARS’ claim procedures. We also advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down her vehicle to the point of failure and call us back with the repair facility’s findings prior to any work being performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On April 11, 2014 at 11:06 a.m., four (4) days later, the repair facility advised us that they could not tie up their repair bay waiting to have the repair authorized and advised that the vehicle would have to be moved. We explained that if the customer’s vehicle was moved pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, a new claim would need to be opened. Later that same day, we explained to the customer that in order to move forward with the claim, permission must be given to tear down the vehicle to the point of failure. The customer advised that they would call the repair facility.

On April 21, 2014, ten (10) days later, the repair facility faxed us an incomplete estimate for the repair of the vehicle. The estimate did not give CARS the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle.

Again, on April 22, 2014 at 11:16 a.m., the repair facility advised that the #1 main bearing had failed and was overheated. In addition, the oil was intermixed with coolant. We advised again that we needed the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.

On April 23, 2014 at 4:23 p.m., we again explained to the customer and the tech at the repair facility that in order to move forward with the claim, the repair facility must provide us with a cause of failure and extent of damage. The tech advised that he would send the head gaskets to a machine shop to determine warpage. He further advised that he could not tell us where the head gasket had failed because the vehicle was not torn down far enough to provide that information.

Over a week later, on both May 1, 2014, and on May 8, 2014, the customer telephoned CARS for an update on the repair of the vehicle. During both telephone calls, we advised that we were still waiting for the findings from the repair facility. We also requested that they have the repair facility contact us.

On May 8, 2014 at 11:31 a.m., we telephoned the repair facility advising that we still needed the cause of failure and extent of damage and also requested that the technician call us with the findings in order to move forward with the claim. The repair facility advised that they did not care and to stop bothering them. The repair facility then ended the call.

On May 8, 2014 at 1:13 p.m., after receiving a complete estimate and assuming that the claim procedures were being properly followed, our claims adjuster went over the amount we could have authorized for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply an engine for $650.00. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 8.3 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $415.00. 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 $965.00 and we could supply the engine as stated above and pay $315.00 towards labor or pay $965.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that they would call us back with the customer’s decision.

On May 8, 2014 at 1:15 p.m., a claims manager advised the customer’s husband that now that we received a complete estimate with the cause of failure we could move forward with the engine repair/replacement. Later that same day, both the customer’s husband and the repair facility advised CARS in two (2) separate recorded telephone calls that the repairs had already been completed when we received the incomplete estimate on April 21, 2014.

On May 8, 2014 at 4:56 p.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, we would not be able to assist with the engine claim because the repairs were completed without prior authorization from CARS. On that same day, at 5:04 p.m., a claims manager also explained to the customer's husband why we could not assist with the engine claim.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on her Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1(c): “1. 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 C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun and “....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information.” The identification card also clearly states: “C.A.R.S. will not be held

responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices.” 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 on April 21, 2013. Thereafter, both the repair facility and the customer gave erroneous information to make CARS believe that the repairs were not yet performed.

In addition, the customer states in her consumer complaint that we were looking for a magical answer for the cause of failure. Our service contracts clearly state in bold print and the same size print as

all of the other terms and conditions at Paragraph 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 teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. Furthermore, CARS explained to the repair facility and the customer and the customer’s husband on several occasions what we required to move forward with claim.

Additionally, the service contract clearly 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 is not responsible for any inconvenience or costs for down time of the customer’s vehicle. Again, the repair facility did not give us information in a timely manner to move forward with claim and when they did provide us with the required information, the repairs were already performed. As stated above, we thoroughly explained our claim procedures to the repair facility on April 7, 2014 and in several telephone calls to the customer during the processing of the claim; however, we did not receive a complete estimate until one (1) month later. The repair facility, not CARS is responsible for the delay in the processing of the April 7, 2014 engine claim.

The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s service contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that a|l CARS’ customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers’ service contract. It also states clearly on the identification card clearly states “WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORK. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice.” As you can clearly see from above, both the repair facility and the customer were fully aware that the repairs were performed on April 21, 2014, which was clearly prior to May 8, 2014 when CARS finally received the required information on the cause of failure to move forward with the claim authorization.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer and the repair facility that was chosen by the customer to repair the vehicle failed to follow the claim procedures that MUST be followed by ALL CARS’ customers.

However, if the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of her service contract on August 10, 2014 or when her vehicle reaches 83,869 miles, whichever is reached first. The customer and any repair facility chosen by her must follow the claims procedures outlined above, and also contained on the service contract and on the identification card provided to the customer. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant 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 product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: I purchased a vehicle warranty plan. In November 2013, when my wife was inquiring about what was covered on her vehicle. Also when she inquired about my vehicle plan, she was told both plans expire in 2015. Due to being told that the plan expired in 2015 and not 2014, we decided to delay getting what is needed to be done on my vehicle to when I wouldn't need it for work. When trying to discuss this with the company, we are told they have no record of the call. They also state that they provided us with expiration cards of some type, which we never received. When my wife tried to get this resolved on Friday, March 14, she was told the company is closing and that she would have to call back on Monday, March 17th. My wife explained that she would be unable to due to work and asked to be transferred to the Manager. Upon transfer she went right into a voicemail. As a result, she could only leave a message. She called approximately 4:15. Company stated they close at 4:30. The individual that called and left the voicemail on our home phone stated that he was sending an email. However, the phone message and email was not the same individual, which is a little confusing. What was stated in email was the same statements that customer service provided on Friday. Nothing further. Special note: we had purchased both contracts at the same time for the same year. We did it deliberately.Desired Settlement: Full refund of what we paid on my vehicle contract or an adjustment to the expiration date to match my wife's expiration date. However, If we find out that this next part will not be covered on my wife's vehicle after the company's rep goes out to the garage this week, we want a full refund on her vehicle plan and my vehicle plan.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 18, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner:

2002 FORD F150: On March 8, 2011 the customer purchased the vehicle from [redacted]. On the same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 12. 2011 (the attached “Service Contract”). The service contract coverage on this vehicle expired on March 12. 2014.

2001 FORD EXPLORER: On March 8, 2011 the customer’s wife purchased the vehicle from [redacted]. and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 125,725 miles on the odometer. On that same date, she also applied for a CARS Value Limited Warranty (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 11, 2011 (the attached “Service Contract”). On May 26, 2011 the customer renewed her service contract via telephone using a credit card for an additional term of 48 months/55,000 Miles. The customer has service contract coverage through June 11, 2015 or when her vehicle reaches 185,225 miles, whichever occurs first.

On March 11, 2013 at 9:01 a.m., we received a telephone call from [redacted] at [redacted] advising that the 2001 Ford Explorer was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the intake manifold gasket. We were advised by the repair facility chosen by the customers that the intake manifold gasket was leaking air, only. CARS was unable to assist with the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s wife’s service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature contained on the service contract application for the 2001 Ford Explorer, she acknowledged that she read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. It is clearly stated under covered components: “Seals and Gaskets ...Additionally, cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks.” The repair facility advised us that the intake manifold gaskets were leaking air, not coolant.

At this time, CARS is not clear as to the customer’s statement in his complaint that the company’s rep was going to the garage this week in regard to a part being covered, because there are currently no open claims made on behalf of the 2001 Ford Explorer.

We would also like to point out that the customer stated that his wife spoke to a customer representative on November 12, 2013 in regard to the expiration date of both service contracts. Our records reflect two (2) separate notes and documentation of what was reviewed for each policy during that telephone call. The expiration date of the CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) for the 2002 Ford F150 was not discussed during this telephone call. However, information regarding coverage was emailed to her.

In addition, contract identification cards were mailed to both the customer and his wife on March 17, 2011. If is clearly stated in the customers’ service contracts under terms and conditions: “Should you not receive notice from CARS within fifteen (15) days of the vehicle purchase, as to the status of your limited warranty application, contact us.” At no time prior to this complaint did the customers contact CARS to advise that they had not received notice (i.e. ID Cards) from CARS that their service contracts were accepted. Additionally, during the November 12, 2013 telephone call, the wife stated that they had also lost the paperwork on their respective service contracts.

Please be advised that CARS keeps detailed files on all CARS service contracts. CARS did mail the customers their I.D. Cards, which clearly state the inception date, type of coverage, inception mileage and expiration date/mileage, if applicable, for their respective vehicles and service contract coverage. CARS never received any documentation returned from the post office of any undeliverable mail for either of these vehicles. Therefore, we believe that the customers did receive them and that they also had a duty to keep records of their respective service contracts in the event the vehicles required mechanical issues.

Furthermore, the service contract for the 2002 Ford F150 expired on March 12. 2014. This vehicle no longer has coverage under any of CARS’ service contracts. Since the 2001 Ford Explorer was renewed, this vehicle does have service contract coverage through June 6. 2015 or when her vehicle reaches 185,225 miles, whichever occurs first.

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.

Consumer

Response:

Dear Revdex.com,

This company records conversations, please ask them to provide the entire recording without edits of any type of when my wife called in November 2013. Notes in a computer can be easily deleted. They are NOT presenting the entire facts and we are trying to proof it, which is going to take time. In regards to the manifold leaking air in March 2013, I am going to have to check our records and the garages records, something seems wrong with what they stated.

Special note: Also, it seems to us that the managers are also behaving like customer reps. When asked for a manager, they give us another rep. My wife spoke with a customer rep, [redacted], on Friday, March 14th. She asked for a Manager and left a message on a voice mail. The individual that called and emailed back never stated he was the manager. Also, it was not underneath of his contact information as him ([redacted]) being a manager. When asked for someone above him, she was provided with [redacted]'s contact information. However, when she emailed her it bounced back. She then asked [redacted] to send her the correct email. He did so without apology. When she asked [redacted] for someone above her, she was given another individual's contact information who then compared our contract with pizza. There seems to be a handful of individuals working here. There are also a number of complaints online regarding this company. Please check deeper into this company. This company is very non customer friendly.

Review: I drive a 2008 Chevy Impala, it is under warranty with cars protection plus for 48months. This is my first claim as of Monday April 11, 2016. I followed the proper producers as to getting repairs done on my vehicle(transmission failure). My cars protection plus Rep (inspector James) told me it would take 5-7 business days for the transmission for my car to reach the repair place . James told me on two different days that the repair place would receive my transmission which never arrived. Now after my vehicle has been at the repair facility for not 14 business days disassembled, Myself without my own transportation for a total of 19 days I asked my cars protection plus rep(James) when would my vehicles transmission arrive at the repair facility, his response was" I Dont know where the transmission is or when it will get there, I am waiting for the company to call me back with a tracking number!" I then said "shouldn't the tracking number been received at the time of purchase or shipment?" James told me that he would call me when he heard something, I asked so what am I suppose to do until then without a vehicle to take my children to school and work? He had no response nor did he have any empathy for my situation being that all repairs and transaction relied on there contract to provide the transmission.Desired Settlement: I would like the warranty company to withhold there part of the contract , to handle their responsibility of having the product(my transmission) they ordered to be shipped and receipt of received in the professional manner. This company has handled or up held the provisions of there contract with any regards to myself or the repair facility.

Business

Response:

May 3, 2016 VIA: First Class Mail [redacted] RE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] APRIL 11, 2016 TRANSMISSION CLAIM 2008 CHEVY IMPALA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] Enclosed please find our check no. [redacted], in the amount of $225.00, representing full and final settlement of the above-referenced matter.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Review: WE BOUGHT A USED 2005 FORD FROM [redacted] WE HAD STARTER PROBLEM IN OCT. HAD IT TOWED TO [redacted], THEY SAID IT STARTED EVERYTIME THEY TRIED. PICKED IT UP FROM THEM. IN ONE MONTH WE HAD SAME PROBLEM, TOWED TO [redacted] ON THANKSGIVING. FRIDAY WHEN GOOD PLACES RESUME WORK, [redacted] SAID IT NEEDED A STARTER FOR $418.12. I CALLED C A R S NO ANSWER SO I LEFT A MESSAGE ON THE PHONE GAVE CONTRACT #[redacted] WHERE THE CAR WAS and PHONE NUMBER, AND THE AMOUNT. PEOPLE CAN NOT LIVE WITHOUT A CAR FOR 4 DAYS. I HOPE YOU COULD HELP ME. THEY SAY I HAD TO HAVE AN OK FROM THEM BEFORE THE WORK TO BE DONE.Desired Settlement: FULL OR PART OF IT

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: Our records show the complainant to be the boyfriend of the owner of the CARS' service contract for the above-referenced vehicle. On November 12, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and was accepted with payment by CARS (the attached "Service Contract”). On October 31, 2013 at 11:02 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing starter issues. On November 14, 2013 CARS paid the repair facility $111.75 via credit card towards a starter and labor pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The starter has a warranty through October 31, 2016 as evidenced on the attached invoice. CARS agree that repairs to vehicles are needed even during holidays. If a message is left by the repair facility that a claim needs to be open during holidays, a return telephone call is made to the repair facility on the next business day. All voice messages left during non-business hour are processed accordingly. CARS has no record of any message being left on our voice mail by a repair facility or the customer regarding the starter issues with the customer's vehicle. However, on December 3, 2014, CARS issued check no. [redacted], in the amount of $52.50 to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. Here, the starter supplied during the October 31, 2014 claim has a three (3) year parts warranty; therefore, the customer should follow-up with the repair facility in regards to the repair facility’s three (3) year warranty on parts.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; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and 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 me.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Review: My car had a wRranty on it which covered the whole engine. I have a problem with the engine and took it in to see what was wrong and I was told my engine is bad and that the warranty company needs to replace engine. So what I got was new heads and all the sludge that is still in the engine is still there and I still need a new engine. The previous owner did. Or change the oil and this company will not stand by the warranty. They are giving me all kind is excuses as to why they will not replace the engine and even with new heads I still will have problems with this engine and no warranty. They told my dealer they will fix it and never want to see this vehicle again. So that tells me they know that there is goi g to be problems with my engine and they DO NOT want to fix it. Now I get a car that is NOT fixed and they took my money but do not want to fix the issue. I want a new engine in that Carr and I want it fix rightDesired Settlement: I want a new engine in my car to fix the issue. My warranty states the whole engine is covered and the engine needs to be fixed and that means a rebuilt the engine or put a rebuilt engine in. My engine will never be right if the engine is not replaced. The sludge inside the engine will continue to damage the engine so if the sludge is not removed the engine will not be fixed.so I want a new engine replaced as my warranty states

Business

Response:

COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated April 25, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 22, 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 May 5, 2015.On January 8, 2016 at 1:37 p.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle was experiencing a head gasket issue. CARS reviewed Service Contract coverage, claim procedures with the customer. CARS further advised that the customer is responsible for diagnostic and tear-down costs for her vehicle.On January 8, 2016 at 1:58 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she was ready to move forward with having her vehicle torn down. CARS reviewed Service Contract coverage and claim procedures with the customer.Fifty five days later, on March 3, 2016 at 1:52 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising the customer's vehicle was experiencing cylinder head issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.On March 3, 2016 at 3:43 p.m., we again advised the repair facility of our claim procedures. 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 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. The repair facility advised CARS that they would telephone the customer regarding further diagnostic/tear-down.On March 4, 2016 at 7:58 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on February 3, 2016 because of losing coolant. The repair facility further advised that the head gaskets were leaking, the coolant was low, there was compression in the radiator and the heads were warped. The repair facility advised CARS that they would fax an estimate of repair and warpage measurements.Twenty one days later, on March 25, 2016 at 11:53 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine was full of sludge. CARS advised the repair facility to fax pictures of the engine to us. The repair facility advised that it that would get to it as soon as soon as possible but it might not be that day.On March 31, 2016 at 2:39 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that sludge could have caused the issues with the customer's vehicle.On March 31, 2016 at 4:03 p.m., after a management review of the picture provided by the repair facility, CARS advised the repair facility to move forward with the tear-down of the customer's vehicle. We further advised that if any further issues were found, CARS would not be able to assist with repair if it was related to sludge.On April 8, 2016 at 3:12 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we need the warpage on the heads. The repair facility advised CARS that they had not heard from the machine shop. The repair facility advised that the head gasket failed on the left side and the right side head gasket appeared to be cracked. CARS advised that we would need cause of failure in order to move forward with the claim.On April 11, 2016 at 4:50 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On April 15, 2016 at 10:10 a.m., CARS telephoned Brian to get the status of the heads. The repair facility advised that they had not heard back from the machine shop and they would keep us informed.On April 25, 2016 at 4:11 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On April 26, 2016 at 10:56 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that she was unhappy that we were not providing a new engine in her vehicle since it was full of sludge.On April 26, 2016 at 1:00 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On April 26, 2016 at 2:19 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that both heads were warped .006. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle needed the head gaskets replaced.On April 26, 2016 at 2:28 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that she wants a new engine because of sludge in the engine. CARS advised that we were basing the repair off the repair facility’s estimate.On April 26, 2016 at 2:58 p.m., the customer’s husband telephoned CARS to advise that the customer’s vehicle needed an engine. CARS then reviewed the estimate from the repair facility with him.On April 27, 2016 at 9:16 a.m., CARS went over the estimated provided by the repair facility to CARS with the repair facility. CARS then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows:We could supply the parts and fluids as follows:Head $102.51 Timing Set $ 28.85 Fluids $ 43.90 Decking $110.00 Total $285.26ProDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 10.6 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour.Total labor $742.00.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 $1027.26, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $642.00 towards labor or pay $924.26 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised that they would like the head set shipped and the cash allowance on all other parts.On April 27, 2016 at 11:04 a.m., the customer advised that she did not want any repairs performed on her vehicle until she contacted CARS. The customer advised that she wanted a new engine for her vehicle. On April 27, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS advised the repair that the customer advised us not to send the head gaskets until she contacted CARS. The repair facility advised that they would speak to the customer. On April 27, 2016 at 5:01 p.m., the customer again advised that she would like a new engine. CARS advised her that the lower part of the engine did not fail and an engine replacement would not be covered under her Service Contract.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. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions under Paragraph 1 (p}: "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure caused sludge or water ingestion" Here the customer's repair facility advised CARS and provided the attached photograph showing that the engine was full of sludge. Based on the findings of the repair facility, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, a replacement engine is NOT covered under the customer's Service Contract. CARS is able to assist with the repair of the cylinder head since it was not caused by sludge. However, if the customer would like to replace the engine she may take the cash allowance and use it towards the replacement of the engine. To reiterate, CARS can only pay for the repair of the cylinder heads; therefore, the total amount we can pay towards the repair of the customer's vehicle is $924.26.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 theThe 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.The customer’s Service Contract expires on May 5, 2016; therefore, upon completion of the cylinder head repair or May 5, 2016, whichever occurs first, the customer’s vehicle will no longer have any Service Coverage under 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 my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

Review: I had a one year unlimited mileage service protection contract ([redacted]) with C.A.R.S. covering the period from June 30, 2014 through June 30, 2015 on a used Ford truck I purchased at [redacted] in early June of this year (2015), my repair shop ([redacted] found a problem with my door actuators/locks - a covered item. The cost was estimated to be $250.00; I had a $100.00 deductible. When [redacted]s called C.A.R.S to obtain the authorization number prior to starting the repair work, they were told the claim would be denied because there was a electrical short causing the odometer to only work intermittently. Since I had unlimited mileage, I can't understand how this would be grounds for refusal to honor the contract, and, therefore, find this rejection of the claim to be bogus. If needed, you can confirm this conversation with C.A.R.S by contacting [redacted] at [redacted] @ ###-###-####.Desired Settlement: Reimbursement of $150.00

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2001 FORD F150VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated July 21, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumercomplaint and respond as follows: According to our records the customer purchased the abovereferencedvehicle on June 21, 2014 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Value PlusService Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS onJune 30, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). The customer's Service Contract expired on June30,2015. On June 2, 2015 at 2:46 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advisingthat the customer's vehicle was experiencing left door lock actuator issues.On June 2, 2015 at 3:08 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised ourclaims adjustor that they could not give us the current mileage on the customer's vehicle becausethe odometer was inoperable and did not illuminate.On that same date at 4:34 p.m., our claims adjustor advised the repair facility that thecustomer's Service Contract was cancelled due to the inoperable odometer.The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms andConditions of your Power Train Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states: "TERMSAND CONDITIONS at 2 (e): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: An inoperativeodometer, and/or odometer display, voids the Service Contract without refund.” Here asstated above, the repair facility advised us that the customer's odometer was not working and nomileage could be displayed; therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer anyassistance with the mechanical claim and cancelled the customer’s Service Contract.CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facilities, since we are unable to inspect each and every vehicle that has an open mechanical claim. Based upon the information provided by the repair facility, and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the customer's claim and his Service Contract is now cancelled.The customer states in his consumer complaint that his service contract is unlimited miles; therefore the inoperable odometer has no bearing. The ability to track accurate mileage on the customer’s odometer from the date of acceptance of his service contract is critical in order to ensure proper and timely maintenance for optimum vehicle performance. A functional odometer is also necessary in order to determine the length and scope of service contract coverage, as well as to determine the warranty miles for any shop supplied and/or CARS supplied parts.As stated above, the customer's Service Contract expired on June 30, 2015; therefore, his vehicle no longer has Service Contract 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 me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I do not consider this complaint resolved. The odometer was never completely ”inoperable;” it was working intermittently. It is currently working despite never having been repaired. If C.A.R.S had contacted me to discuss the issue instead of arbitrarily canceling the contract, I could have explained the situation. Their actions were taken solely to sidestep paying for the repair that should have been covered by the contract. While their actions were technically within the confines of the contract, C.A.R.S never contacted me to tell me that the contract had been cancelled. I consider this a poor, shady business practice for a company purporting itself to be reputable.

Review: I purchased a warranty/service contract and they cars protection plus is denying my claim unfairly and are unwilling to work to resolution. Throughout the process I asked them if any thing was needed from me and if everything was going as it should they agreed and then at completion they claimed a step was missed and are denying entire claim. I see many instances where this company was involved with wrong doing on complaints I am adding my complaint into the mix.Desired Settlement: Pay the portion of the claim covered by the service contract.

Business

Response:

March 29, 2016VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com website[redacted]RE: COMPLAINT ID# [redacted]2009 AUDIA4 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated March 29, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 20, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on November 29, 2014.On March 7, 2016 at 2:43 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures.On March 7, 2016 at 3:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on March 7, 2016. The repair facility advised that customer's vehicle was misfiring, experiencing loss of power and the check engine light was displayed. CARS then went over our claim procedures in detail. CARS 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. CARS further advised the repair facility to hold all parts and any repairs done without prior authorization would be denied by CARS. CARS advised the repair facility to telephone CARS with their findings.On March 15, 2016 at 9:03 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that cylinder #4 forward intake valve was damaged and need to be sent to a machine shop for diagnosis. CARS reviewed with the repair facility that they would need to obtain the customer’s permission to send the head to the machine shop. CARS further advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer was responsible for any diagnosis charges. CARS further advised that no repairs should be completed without authorization from CARS. We advised the repair facility to get back to us with their findings.On March 15, 2016 at 4:51 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of the claim and if we needed anything from him or the repair facility. CARS advised that everything was going well at that time and we were waiting on the report from the machine shop. We explained that we would move forward with the claim when we received the machine shop's findings and their estimate for repair.On March 25, 2016 at 9:19 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was no warpage found on the head. The repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle needed head bolts, gasket valve crank kit, intake valve, seals for the cam injector, timing chain guide and turbo solenoid valve. The repair facility further advised that upon start up there was a slight miss that could be coming from the high pressure fuel pump. The repair facility faxed their invoice showing parts and labor charges for CARS' review.On March 25, 2016 at 9:53 a.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle had a slight miss on start-up and no recoding on start-up confirming that the customer's vehicle had been repaired.On March 25, 2016 at 10:36 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance on the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. The repairs to the customer's vehicle were performed without prior authorization from CARS. CARS advised the repair facility that we reviewed our claim procedures with them on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016.On March 25, 2016 at 10:50 a.m., CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance on the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. The repairs to the customer’s vehicle were performed without prior authorization from CARS. CARS advised the customer that we reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016.On March 25, 2016 at 11:25 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the claim with the customer. The claims manager advised the customer that CARS does not pay for unauthorized claims and that the repair facility was instructed by CARS to not to perform any repairs without prior authorization from CARS. The customer advised that he would like a refund of his Service Contract. The claims manager then referred the customer to our cancellation department.On March 25, 2016 at 11:55 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like to keep his Service Contract in effect but would like to review his Service Contract cancellation options. CARS then reviewed his state's cancellations provisions with him.By the customer’s signature on his Service Contract the customer 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 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from C.A.R.S." Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle was advised by CARS that any repairs done without prior authorization would be denied by CARS on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016. However, the repair facility performed the repairs to the customer’s vehicle without prior authorization from CARS.The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at 3(e) and 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S. with anestimate before any repairs are begun." and "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" and "...No invoices or receipts will be processed without a valid authorization number." 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 his vehicle never contacted CARS with the cause of failure to his vehicle and never provided an estimate for the repair of his vehicle so CARS could move forward with the processing of the claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.As you can see from the above paragraphs, the repair facility was made fully aware of CARS’ claim procedures stated in the customer's Service Contract. In addition, our claim procedures were discussed with the customer on March 15, 2016 by the claims adjustor and the repair facility was made aware of CARS' claim procedures by the claims adjustor on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the repairs made to the customer’s vehicle repair to determine if the failed component was covered pursuant the customer's Service Contract or to determine the amount we would be able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.As evidenced in the above paragraphs, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim due to failure to follow proper claim procedures which must be followed by all CARS' customers.The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through November 29, 2017. Should the customer's vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under his 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.

I am very disappointed with this service I Took my car to the mechanic to be serviced the mechanic called C.A.R.S to submit a claim told exactly what was wrong with the car the transfer case need to be replaced its gone bad it's a covered part under C.A.R.S warranty and the adjuster told the mechanic that he has to give him a full diagnostics of the part before they cover the part so I am responsible for the tear down and the diagnostics of the transfer case. So now I have to pay this mechanic to tear down everything and do a diagnostics of the part Plus my deductible

Review: I purchased cars warranty after being informed by dealership, that cars warranty cover s all major defects or issues with vehicle. I took my car in for a checkup and was informed that there was a major issue with the car. I called cars warranty company after speaking a company rep. I was informed that the issue was not cover i.e. if it states the engine in covered and there was a leak coming from the engine, but from a bracket hat would cause the engine to go out and in order to prevent the engine from going out, it has to be fixed. That bracket isn't covered. And if your your engine goes out you will have to pay a break down fee and they will send one of their people to view. If they decide to replace it will not be for a new product but a rebuilt one with the same amount of miles. Also if your not approved, your paying an additional fee to put parts back together. None of this was explained. It states engine covered, but not parts in engineDesired Settlement: Take care of issues with car. I purchased warranty, with the assumption that this was a reliable company and lives up to their AAA. Rating

Business

Response:

I received your letter of April 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On October 31, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 3, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). On March 25, 2015 at 2:21 p.m., the customer’s wife advised a CARS customer service representative that a repair facility advised her that the above-referenced vehicle was experiencing upper timing gasket and bracket gasket issues. Our customer service representative then reviewed the service coverage for the vehicle and our claim procedures with her. On March 26, 2015 at 2:22 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing ignition coil, bracket gasket, and timing gasket issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle was not at the repair facility. CARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract that the vehicle must be at the repair facility in order for a claim to be opened on behalf of the vehicle. On March 26, 2015 at 3:04 p.m., a CARS customer service representative again reviewed our claim procedures with the customer's wife. CARS then advised that under the customer's Service Contract ignition coils are listed as covered components; however, seals and gaskets are non-covered components under the Service Contract. The above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issues. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer's service contract. Please be advised that by the customer's signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, in order for a claim to be opened, and the vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." In addition, it is also stated at Paragraph 3(b): "The repair facility must call C.A.R.S. at 888-335-6838 to open a claim.” The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was reviewed with the customer’s wife during telephone conversations on March 25, 2015 and March 26, 2015. Claim procedures were also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). It is clear that the customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in his service contract or on his identification card to properly open a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component. Additionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks. Oil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph 1 (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Here, even if the customer properly opened a claim as outlined on the Service Contract, CARS would not be able to assist with the replacement of any gaskets or any damaged caused by fluid leaks. The engine coils are listed on the customer's Service Contract as covered components. In her complaint the customer's wife states that that the engine is covered but not the parts of the engine. All of the parts covered under the customer's Service Contract are listed under "COVERED COMPONENTS” on the front of the customers' Service Contract. The attached Service Contract highlights the covered components listed under the "ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM". The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph 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 was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. Therefore, it is the customer’s responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down charges. The customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used. rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. 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. If the customer's vehicle has not yet been repaired, the customer should take his vehicle to a repair facility to have a claim opened on behalf of his vehicle as outlined on his Service Contract and contract identification card. CARS will review all information provided by the repair facility to determine if CARS is able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle 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 me.

Review: My car warranty is suppose to cover 100% of the repairs on any internal lubricated part in the vehicle. I have talked to the company and my auto shop has talked to the company and they want to put a 120,000 mile engine in the vehicle. Which is fine. But they aren't doing what the contract says. They only want to cover like half and then I have to come up with the rest of the money. That is not what my contract says.Desired Settlement: I want them to do what the contract says and cover it 100% like the contract that we have states. I want them to cover the engine cost and installation like they are supposed too.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your recent email and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on June 25, 2013 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). Her Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on June 28, 2013 (See attached “Service Contract"). Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract three (3) mechanical claims were opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle as follows: FIRST CLAIM: On February 18, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing front wheel bearing issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply both the front bearings and seals for $62.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $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 $82.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $82.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. On February 18, 2014 at 4:23 p.m., during CARS telephone call with the customer to go over the claim allowance, the customer advised CARS to cancel the claim. The claim was then closed. SECOND CLAIM: On September 9, 2014 at 9:17 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1,100.00. CARS would authorize $40.00 towards fluids for the repair of the vehicle. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 9.2 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $552.00. 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 $1,692.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $452.00 towards labor and $40.00 towards fluids or pay $1,692.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility was to get back to CARS’ with the customer's decision. On September 18, 2014 at 9:21 a.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to supply the transmission. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on September 25, 2014, CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $492.00 via credit card and on October 14, 2014, CARS paid our parts supplier $1,100.00 via check. The claim was then closed. THIRD CLAIM: On February 2, 2015 at 2:08 p.m. the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On February 20, 2015 at 10:40 a.m. the repair facility advised CARS that the #1 rod bearing had failed. On February 26, 2015 CARS received the estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle from the repair facility. On February 27, 2015 at 9:08 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the motor for $650.00. CARS would authorize $48.00 towards fluids for the repair of the vehicle. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 9.2 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $552.00. 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 $1,150.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $452.00 towards labor and $48.00 towards fluids or pay $1,150.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility was to get back to CARS’ with the customer's decision. CARS advised the repair facility that the motor had 110,000 miles on it. CARS further advised the repair facility that timing belt is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract; however, it would be in the best interest of the customer's vehicle if it would be replaced during this repair since the vehicle would already be torn down. On March 2, 2015 at 2:36 p.m., the customer advised CARS that we should cover all the costs associated with the repair of her vehicle. We reviewed her service coverage with her. The customer was not happy with her coverage. As of March 2, 2015, CARS has not yet heard back from the repair facility with the customer's decision. We cannot guarantee that the engine that was quoted to the repair facility on February 27, 2015 is still available. Our suppliers’ inventories change daily. By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing

Review: I called in a needed repair to the warranty hotline Friday around 5;45. This was after the company had closed. I left a message stating I needed to have a repair done to my vehicle in order to transport my son to College on Sunday and needed to let them know where the vehicle was at. MY vehicle was repaired and the parts were saved to put the claim in once I received a return call. I received a return call Tuesday at approximately 9:30 am. I was informed that the parts were covered but that because I went ahead and fixed it that the repair did not qualify. I in no way prejudiced the rights of CARS to inspect the vehicle or damaged parts. The fact that CARS was not open to accept my claim prejudiced my rights to effectively have the repair completed. Therefore I am out $310.00 because of CARS poor customer service practices.Desired Settlement: I expect CARS to revisit this as they were closed. I expect to provide the vehicle for inspection and the parts and expect payment less my $100 ded

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]

2009 FORD EXPEDITION VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated September 9, 2015, enclosing the above referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: CARS contacted the customer on September 15, 2015 to request that he provide an invoice from the repair facility.On September 16, 2015, after the customer provided the invoice for the repair of his vehicle to CARS and after a management review of the customer's consumer complaint, CARS advised the customer that CARS would pay $190.88 towards the repair of his vehicle. The customer has agreed to this amount. Enclosed please find a copy of check no. [redacted] in the amount of $190.88 made payable to the customer.CARS considers this matter to be 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 me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Review: I bought my car and 2 weeks later engine began knocking/ticking so I brought to dealership and warranty company told dealership I was responsible for $1100 for engine break down. So in a rough spot I told dealership I would pay that so that they could find out what was wrong so warranty company could fix it. Dealership found that the engines rod and crankshaft were gone and said my car needed an engine replacement. Now the rod, crankshaft, and engine are all parts listed in the warranties covered parts but the warranty company said they would only cover $1100.00 towards the replacement of the engine. Since I could not afford putting the money up for a new engine which is what I should have got! I had to put up over $3600.00 towards a used engine. They in the end only gave me $1145.00 towards my over $4700.00 bill.Desired Settlement: I think that I should get a new engine put in my car! I was left in a predicament and a position where I was left no choice but to put a used engine in my car which is not right when the parts that went were covered under my warranty. I also think I should be reimbursed the money I had to put towards this bill which was $3600.00! These warranty companies leave people in bad situations with no choice but to pick the cheapest option that they can afford and its wrong!

Business

Response:

1 received your letter dated October 6, 2014, enclosing the customer's concerns contained the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on September 6, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, she also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on September 10, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).

A mechanical claim was opened on September 22, 2014 at 10:38 a.m., by a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. The repair facility advised that their shop’s labor rate was $99.95 per hour. CARS claim procedures were then thoroughly reviewed with the repair facility.

After CARS received the estimate for repairs on September 24, 2014, CARS went over with the repair facility the amount we could authorize for the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract as follows: CARS could supply an engine for $675.00. Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide states that the repair should take 11.4 hours and the customer’s service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour; therefore, total labor allowed was $570.00. 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 $1,145. 00 and we could supply the engine as stated above and pay $470.00 towards labor or pay $1,145.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice.

That same day at 4:10 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to use our money allowance for the engine repairs. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair. When CARS receives the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs to the customer's vehicle are completed, CARS will pay the repair facility the amount of $1,145.00 as stated above and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

At this time, I would also like to clarify that the Power Train Service Contract that the customer purchased on her vehicle is the most basic service contract that CARS offers and is limited in coverage time and miles, labor rate of $50.00 per hour, deductible of $100.00, covered components and the responsibility of the customer for various other charges not covered under the service contract (i.e. tear down, diagnosis, taxes, fluids, filters, difference in labor rates and time, etc.). Therefore, CARS is not required to cover the full cost of the repair.

In summary, the customer's 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 is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the teardown, diagnosis, filters, fluids, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. Accordingly, CARS service contracts are to assist with covered mechanical failures; however, they are not intended to pay 100% for customer's repairs. Here, the repair facility’s labor rate that the customer chose to repair her vehicle was $99.95 and her service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour; therefore, any difference in labor charges rate and time are the sole responsibility of the customer. The customer is also responsible for any and all costs relating to the teardown and diagnosis of the vehicle. However, after a claim is authorized by CARS the labor time allowable for the repair does include the cost to replace and repair. Additionally, any difference in the engine price that CARS could have supplied and the cost of the replacement engine that the repair facility is charging the customer, is the sole responsibility of the customer.

As you can see from all the above information, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations regarding the customer’s recent engine claim, which will be paid by CARS in the total amount of $1,145.00 once we receive the final invoice evidencing that the repairs are completed, pursuant 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 product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: I purchased and warranty from C.A.R.S Protection Plus. The warranty clearly states that the following brake components are covered: Under Brake components it list these items as being covered: Master cylinder; wheel cylinders, calipers, ABS hydraulic components; ABS speed sensors; and ABS control module. The following components are the only items listed as not covered under my warranty: drums rotors, pads, linings, hoses, lines and wiring.ABS hydraulic components consist of various components, of which the hydraulic brake booster is a component. The warranty states ABS hydraulic components are covered; therefore this should the booster should be covered. Furthermore, the warranty does not list that brake motors or trans pan gasket & connectors are not covered. However, C.A.R.S protection plus is refusing to cover these 3 things; the brake booster, the park brake motor and the trans pan gaset & connector. A copy of the warranty can be submitted it needed. Thank you.Desired Settlement: Honor the warranty and cover the cost for the specified items that they are refusing to cover (ABS brake booster, park brake motor and trans pan gasket & connectors).

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On March 25 2013, 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 (the attached “Service Contract”).

Since the inception of the customer’s service contract coverage, third (3) mechanical claims were opened on behalf of the vehicle as follows:

FIRST CLAIM: On July 29, 2013 at 11:07 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the a/c compressor, and power steering pump. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $299.57, the a/c drier for $21.74 and the power steering pump for $104.24 we could allow $28.92 towards fluids. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 4.7 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $282.00. 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 $636.47 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $210.92 towards labor and fluids or pay $636.47 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The customer chose to have the parts shipped to the repair facility. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $210.92 towards labor and fluids as stated above via credit card. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On September 9, 2013 at 4:06 p.m., CARS received a telephone call

from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the transmission pan gasket. We advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract the transmission pan gasket is a non-covered component under the service contract. We then closed the claim.

On September 24, 2014 at 3:54 p.m., a customer service representative advised the customer that the pursuant to the terms and conditions of her service contract the transmission pan gasket is a non-covered component under her service contract.

On December 13, 2013, the customer had three (3) telephone conversations with our customer service department. We were advised by a repair facility during those telephone conversations that that the calipers on the customer’s vehicle had already been replaced. We explained to the repair facility and the customer that any unauthorized repairs are not covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. We reviewed the terms and conditions and the procedures for opening a claim with the customer.

On June 10, 2014 at 9:36 a.m., the customer advised CARS that her repair facility informed her that they have been corresponding with CARS via fax and providing serial numbers for parts to us. We advised that this was not the case and that no claim had been opened on her vehicle at this time. We reviewed claim procedures and how to open a claim with the customer.

THIRD CLAIM: On June 12, 2013 at 9:35 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a

repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the transmission pan gasket, 02 sensor, transmission connector, brake booster, wheel bearings, and park brake motor. We then went over the claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize as follows: We could supply the 02 sensor for $76.71, and the left wheel bearing for $159.80. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.2 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $72.00. 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 $208.51 and we could supply the parts as stated above; however, we would not be able to assist with labor because the labor cost would be less than the deductible or pay $208.51 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would call us with the customer’s decision. On that same day, the repair facility informed us that the customer chose to have the parts shipped to the repair facility. We then ordered the parts from our supplier and advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival date of the parts was June 16, 2014.

On June 17, 2014 at 1:46 p.m., a customer service representative again reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with the customer and explained that the brake booster is a non-covered component under the customer’s service contract. The customer argued that the booster was a hydraulic component and we once again we reviewed the terms and conditions with reviewed with her.

On June 17, 2014, at 1:55 p.m., the customer again called us to state she was upset that we were not offering assistance with the brake booster on her vehicle. Our customer service manager went over her service contract with her and once again reviewed non-covered components with her and explained that brake boosters are not covered under her service contract.

By the customer’s signature on her service contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. It is clearly stated in

the customer’s service contract: “Covered Components: “Coverage limited to above

components.” and under the Terms and Conditions: “Other than those components listed above, no other components are covered by the limited warranty regardless of failure.”

Here, the hydraulic brake booster, the transmission pan gasket, park brake motor, and connectors are not listed as covered components on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of these parts.

Please also be advised that under the customer’s service contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any other further assistance with the June 12, 2014 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Please be advised the customer has service contract coverage for her vehicle through April 22, 2015. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

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.

Consumer

Response:

Review: I submitted a request to have my car fixed. the transmission does not work. They have not honored the contract to fix it, its been in the shop for 3 weeks now with no resolutionDesired Settlement: I would like a new transmission for this car

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 3, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 31, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on April 4, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

FIRST CLAIM: On May 13, 2014 at 1:43 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission problems. We then reviewed our claim procedures and advised the repair facility that the customer’s permission was needed to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the customer was responsible for all diagnostic/teardown costs. Later that day, the repair facility advised CARS that it did not do repairs on the type of transmission in the customer’s vehicle. We then advised the repair facility that the customer’s vehicle would have to be moved to a repair facility that would perform internal transmission repairs on the vehicle.

SECOND CLAIM: On May 20, 2014 at 2:29 p.m., we received a telephone call from a new repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission problems. We then reviewed our claim procedures and advised the repair facility that the customer's permission was needed to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the customer was responsible for all diagnostic/teardown costs.

On May 23, 2014 at 9:33 a.m., the repair facility advised that the cause of failure was the valve body. We then advised the repair facility to fax an estimate. After receiving the repair facilities estimate, CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply a

transmission for $1,215.00, and a friction modifier for $12.00, we could pay $54.00 towards fluids. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 6.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $360.00. 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 $1,541.00 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $314.00 towards labor and fluid or pay $1,541.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

Later that same day, the repair facility advised us that the customer would like to have the

transmission shipped to the repair facility. The repair facility then advised us that the transmission needed to have a specific number stamped in the case to work properly with the valve body. Our claims adjuster then advised the repair facility that CARS would have to look into this further since we did not have this information when we gave the repair facility the options for CARS to assist with the claim.

During the processing of the claim, due to the conflicting information regarding the cause of failure and estimate for repairs, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the vehicle was necessary to verify the exact cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle. On June 3, 2014 the independent inspector advised the repair facility of the inspection and explained the requirement to have the transmission removed and disassembled in order verify the cause of failure. The repair facility advised that the transmission was ready for inspection. However, when the independent inspector arrived at the repair facility, he was told it would take an hour to disassemble and set up the valve body to demonstrate a failure. The repair facility also stated that the repair facility did not have time to set up the test and the independent inspector should come back another day. The repair facility further advised the independent inspector that they were frustrated that CARS was sending a used unit. No failed components were shown to the independent inspector.

On June 3, 2014 at 1:40 p.m., we advised the repair facility that we never stated that we were sending a used transmission. We further advised that prior to CARS providing the customer’s options for the claim allowance, the repair facility did not provided us with complete information regarding the need for the transmission and valve body to have corresponding codes. We explained to the repair facility that pursuant to the customer’s service contract, re-inspection of the customer’s vehicle was needed and the customer was responsible for the cost. The repair facility stated they would not pay for it.

Later that same day our claims adjustor and a claims manager spoke to the customer and updated her on the status of the claim. We went over the need for an independent inspection due to conflicting information, parts listed on the estimates as needed for repair and the independent inspector not being able to verify any failures to the customer’s vehicle due to the transmission not being torn down by the repair facility and the repair facility’s lack of cooperation with the independent inspector. We also explained that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, the customer is responsible for the cost of a second independent inspection.

On June 4, 2014 after a three way call with CARS, the repair facility and the customer, the customer agreed to pay for a second independent inspection to her vehicle. The independent inspection occurred on June 5, 2014. The independent inspector observed the technician performing a static air test of the valve body and verified the valves for the low/forward clutches were sticking and showed heat. The rest of the clutches showed normal wear. Clutch and metal debris were observed in the pan and torque converter.

On June 6, 2014 at 10:05 a.m., after verifying the part number for the main control assembly with the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could now authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply a transmission for $1,215.00 and a valve body for $2,492.24. We could pay $78.80 towards fluids. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 7.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $420.00. 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 $4,106.04 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $398.80 towards labor and fluid or pay $4,106.04 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We advised the repair facility to get back to us with the customer’s decision. At this time we are waiting for the customer’s decision.

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 clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “CARS has the right to select and 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 also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer has the

choice to have our supplied transmission shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. The valve body is a new part.

Please be advised that it is clearly stated at Paragraph 3(c): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: 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. If C.A.R.S. inspects the vehicle and it is not disassembled to allow verification of the cause and extent of the failure, you will be responsible for all re-inspection costs.” During the first independent inspection of you vehicle the independent inspector was not able verify any failures to the customer’s vehicle because the repair facility did not properly tear down the transmission. In addition, even though the repair facility was aware that the independent inspection was to occur on June 3, 2014, the repair facility asked the independent inspector to come back another day. Therefore, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, the customer was responsible for the cost of the second inspection.

We would like to point out here that the repair is responsible for the length of time it has taken to process the claim. The repair facility did not provide CARS with sufficient information prior to CARS giving the initial options for assistance with the customer’s claim. In addition, we received conflicting information, inconsistencies in the parts needed for repairs listed on estimates, and the independent inspector not being able to verify any failures to the vehicle due to the transmission not being torn down by the repair facility and also the repair facility’s lack of cooperation with the independent inspector. CARS has responded in a timely manner to the information we have received from the repair facility; however, as you can see the repair facility has not been forthcoming with information for the processing of the customer’s claim.

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; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

At this time, CARS is waiting to hear back from the repair facility on the customer’s decision to take the cash allowance or have CARS ship the parts to the repair facility and assist with labor costs as stated above. As soon as we hear back from the repair facility we will be able to move forward with the May 20, 2014 claim made of behalf of the customer’s 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.

Review: purchased a used car and thinking also buy the third party extended warranty would be a good idea, about one month after car purchasing and there was a 'checking engine' light on, took car to dealer and found the issue, dealer and I both called the Cars Protection Plus for per-authorization for repair but were denied for coverage.here is the language in the contract: ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM Lubricated parts contained within the engine block; cylinder heads; intake manifold; pistons;......intake/exhaust valves and valve springs;......the error code reads: vans intake fault code: 2A87, P code 0015 P0012clear to me, not car expert, this is a intake/exhaust valve issue. I'd like to fill this complain and make all aware this kind of 'service'.---[redacted]Desired Settlement: warranty contract refund for repair job, this is why I bought the 'warranty'. Thanks.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 30, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 20, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on March 21, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On April 29, 2014 at 2:14 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the vanos solenoid. We advised the repair facility that the vanos solenoid was not covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The vanos solenoid is external to the vanos valve and not an internally lubricated part; therefore, no coverage was available.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Ultimate Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. It is clearly stated in the customer’s service contract: “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.” The vanos solenoid is not listed as a covered component under the customer’s service contract.

Furthermore, under the customer’s service contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Please be advised that CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facility to determine if a part is covered under our service contracts. The repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that the “vanos solenoid” failed on the vehicle which is not listed as a covered component under the customer’s service contract as stated above.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the April 29, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. in the consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund for the service contract. Please be advised that 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, CARS is directed by Illinois state statute to refund a pro-rated amount less a service fee and claims paid. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the both of the names listed on the service contract witnessed and notarized signatures, if the customer is agreeable to a refund of $1,769.86 which represents a prorated amount of $1,819.86 less a service fee of $50.00 for a total refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer. Upon our receipt of the enclosed General Release with the customers’ original witnessed and notarized signatures, we will send the prorated amount CARS received from the selling dealer, to the selling dealer who would then issue a check to the customer.

We would further like to point out here that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers; therefore, CARS only receives a set price for each service contract sold and any remaining refund of the customer’s service contract owed to the customer is to be paid by [redacted] Auto Sales. CARS received $1,899.00 from the selling dealer for the purchase of an Ultimate Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) for the customer’s vehicle. Accordingly, since the selling dealer paid us for the customer’s service contract we will send the refund to the selling dealer. This provides an opportunity to the dealer to refund the customer their portion of the profit of the monies due the customer.

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.

Review: I purchased a warranty for coverage of my 2008 BMW 1 year ago. I have never used it for any repairs before. I recently had to have my starter replaced. I have a reputable mechanic working on my vehicle. They quoted them $1024.00 for labor and parts. C.A.R.S stated that they would only pay $351.00. After my deductible they are only liable for $251.00. That barely covers the price of the starter. I communicated this to them but they refuse to budge. What I can't understand is why communicate that you cover certain repairs, take a person's money, and then refuse to pay a reasonable price for those repairs. I asked them if their price is reasonable then provide me with the name of the shop that would do it for that price. They said that they would not do that. Thus further showing that their price is fictional at best.Desired Settlement: I would like the full cost of my warranty to be refunded or pay the reasonable price for the repair or provide me with a legitimate place to take my car to that will do the job for your estimate.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the customers purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 4, 2013 from International Motor Productions. On that same date, the customers also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customers’ service contract was received with payment and approved on February 4, 2013 (the attached service contract).

On February 25, 2014 at 9:59 a.m., we received a telephone call from Scott at South Point Auto advising that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the starter. We then went over our claim procedures with Scott.

During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the starter for $143.10 and gaskets for $28.65. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated the repair should take 3.0 hours to complete and the service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $180.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We then advised the repair facility that the total amount we could authorize for the claim was $251.75, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the parts as stated above and also pay $80.00 towards the labor or CARS could pay the total amount of $251.75 towards the repair. The repair facility advised us that they would call CARS back with the customers’ decision.

On February 25, 2014 at 9:59 a.m., a claims adjuster went over the amount we could authorize for the claim allowance with the customer. We advised the customer to notify the repair facility of their decision. At 11:19 a.m., Scott advised CARS that the customers wanted to take the cash allowance for the repairs. CARS then gave the repair facility an authorization to repair the customer’s vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customers’ service contract. The customers’ service contract clearly states under terms

and conditions at Paragraph 3(c): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: 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 was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.

In addition, under the terms and conditions of the service contract it is clearly stated at Paragraph 3(f): “CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selects the above-mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of those parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customers had the choice to have our replacement parts shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair. Here, the customers chose to have the cash allowance to assist with the repair.

Please also be advised that it clearly states on the service contract under labor: “The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility’s rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” We would like to point out here that when the claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customers to repair the vehicle, the repair facility advised us that its labor rate was $109.00 dollars per hour. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customers are responsible for the difference in labor rate and time.

Furthermore, the customers’ service contract clearly states under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(a): “Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility within the continental <st1:country-region>United States</st1:country-region>, in order for a claim to be opened.” CARS does not find or choose repair facilities for the repair of vehicles. We require that the repair facility be qualified to do repairs and allow the service contract holder to make the decision of where to take their vehicle for repairs.

Please be further advised that pursuant to the customers’ 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; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customers what is specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Furthermore, the customer requested a full refund of the amount listed on the customers’ service contract. CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers; therefore, CARS only receives a set price for each contract sold. Any remaining money from what the customers’ paid and what CARS received are strictly between the customers and the selling dealer. Pursuant to Texas law, CARS is willing to offer the customers a prorated refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer which was $899.00, less a $50.00 service fee, and less $251.75 which was the amount that was authorized for the payment of the February 25, 2014 claim opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The total amount of the refund is $353.77. If the customer has not had the repair performed on the customer’s vehicle, the authorized amount will be reflected in the refund. Accordingly, since the dealer paid us for the service contract, we will send the refund to the selling dealer. This provides an opportunity to the selling dealer to refund the customer their prorated portion of the profit of the monies due the customers.

Review: The warranty I purchased for my car covers engine and transmission. My truck has transmission issues I took it to two shops and they refuse to cover it due to their opinion of what caused the issue. I have 2 experts in the field for more than 15 years working on [redacted] and they put it on writing what the cause of the failure was. The rep RC and the supervisor [redacted] dont want to cover a transmission issue leaving me with a 3k bill to pay for.Desired Settlement: All I want is to have my transmission repaired, thats why I bought a powertrain warranty for. They keep saying "what caused the issue is not covered, but the transmission is having too many issues to say that just one thing caused all them.

Business

Response:

June 23, 2015VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 [redacted] VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated June 22, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on March 7, 2015. 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 March 12, 2015 (See attached Service Contract). The customer's Service Contract expired on June 12, 2015.First Claim: On April 16, 2015 at 10:16 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We further advised that the repair facility must obtain the customer’s permission to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure to determine if the failed component would be covered under the customer’s Service Contract.On April 16, 2015 at 11:35 a.m., CARS advised the customer of our claim procedures and then explained that we needed a cause of failure and extent of damage from the repair facility to determine if the failure is covered under his Service Contract.On April 21, 2015 at 1:47 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the solenoid box had failed. The repair facility advised that they would fax CARS an estimate and the cause of failure.On April 27, 2015 at 9:53 a.m., a claims manager telephoned the repair facility and advised that if the solenoid box could be purchased separately from the transmission, the solenoid box would be a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract.On April 27, 2015 at 10:18 a.m., a claims manager advised the customer that a non-covered component, the solenoid block, caused the failure of a covered component, the transmission; therefore, under the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle. The customer then advised that he was going to move his vehicle to a new repair facility for another opinion.Second Claim: On June 11, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., a claim was called in by a repair facilityadvising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We further advised that the repair facility must obtain the customer's permission to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure to determine if the failed component would be covered under the customer's Service Contract.On June 11, 2015 at 4:39 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was torn down and the third gear clutch and the valve body had failed. The repair facility advised that they would fax an estimate to CARS.After CARS reviewed the estimate faxed to us by the repair facility, it was determined that an independent inspection was necessary to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.The independent inspection occurred on June 18, 2015. The independent inspector findings were as follows: The transmission had been removed from the vehicle and partially disassembled. There were no documented codes. The fluid was drained and milky which is consistent with fluid intermix. The clutch material was flaking. The steels were hot spotted and the sealing rings were deteriorated. There was light metal on the magnet. The radiator cap was distorted and no signs of external leaks. There was an auxiliary cooler installed but it was in line with the radiator cooler. The repair facility did not want to perform a pressure test.The independent inspector found that the radiator trans-cooler had failed causing the fluids to mix and causing subsequent damage to the transmission.Based upon the independent inspector's findings, CARS contacted the repair facility on June 19, 2015 at 9:24 a.m., advising that CARS would not be able to offer any assistance because a non- covered component (radiator trans-cooler) caused the failure to a covered component (transmission). Later that same day, on June 19, 2015, we explained to the customer why we could not assist with the transmission claim.By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the customer's service contract at Paragraph 1 (f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a non-covered component." Here, the failure to the transmission (covered component) was caused by the failure of the radiator trans-cooler (non-covered component) pursuant to the customer's Service Contract coverage. In addition, it is stated in the service contract: "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." The radiator and the trans-cooler in the radiator are not listed on the customer's Service Contract as covered components.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.Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the June 11, 2015 transmission claim.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, [redacted]General Counsel[redacted]Attachment