Sign in

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

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

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

Review: I purchased a 2008 Toyota Corolla from [redacted] Motors in [redacted] in Sep. 2013. When I purchased the vehicle; I also purchased a warranty offered by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus for 3 years/unlimited mileage. My car broke down on 01/17/15 so I placed a call on Monday 01/19/15 to request repairs. I was told to take it to an auto mechanic shop and have it looked at and the mech. shop would contact them to open a claim. I took my vehicle,by trailer,to [redacted] Auto Shop in [redacted]. It was determined to have a bad motor and it would need to be replaced. When [redacted] at [redacted] Auto Shop, spoke to C.A.R.S. company; she was informed that the motor itself would have to be tore down in order to determine the cause of the problem (by CARS)which turned out to be oil pump going out and causing motor to fail. CARS rep ([redacted] at ext [redacted]) told [redacted] to find a motor that had similar mileage to my current motor (which has approx 106,000m). She found a motor with 90,000 miles (priced at $1,480). On 1/21/15 I recieved a call from [redacted] Auto that [redacted] (with CARS) informed her that his company had found a motor for $875.00. When [redacted] was asked about number of miles and where the motor was coming from; [redacted] was informed that information would not be released. I placed a call to [redacted] and was told the same thing. I explained to him that I had purchased this warranty and since my motor had 106,000 miles;that an equivalent motor should be put back into my car. He also told me the information of location and mileage of $875 motor would not be released and that they (and he quotes) "We are are not forcing you to get the motor" but that they will only cover $875 towards my motor. In addition to this; they will only cover 12.4 hours of labor. CARS ordered the tear down on the motor (labor:$400) and they refuse to pay this as well. [redacted] gave [redacted] Auto instructions to do so. When I asked about a warranty on the $875 motor; he said that only warranty I would have would be what is left on my contract.Desired Settlement: I want a motor to be placed into my car that is in at least as good a shape as my current motor or better. (for sure; not worse). The cost of labor for the entire job should be paid; in addition to the tear down cost; as [redacted] (with C.A.R.S) told the auto shop to do. The motor that cost $1,480 also comes with a one year warranty from the company it is being purchased from. Total quote from [redacted] Auto is $1,480 for motor and $1,000 for labor.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 22, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on September, 19, 2013 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer’s Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on September 26, 2013 (See attached "Service Contract"). Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract only one (1) claim was called in from a repair facility on January 19, 2015 at 3:02 p.m. advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility. After the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and repair estimate (attached) on January 20, 2015, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply an engine for $875.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 12.4 hours to complete and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $744.00. 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 $1,519.00. CARS could supply the engine as stated above and pay $664.00 towards labor or pay $1,519.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer's decision. To date, we have not heard back from the repair facility regarding the customer's decision. The customer's complaint states that she is unhappy with the engine price, diagnosis and tear down, labor rate and time; however, 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 PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement engine we used the cost of the engine to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the engine CARS could supply has fewer miles than the engine currently in the customer’s vehicle. 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. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down charges. Also, the customer's service contract states at: "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." Here, the repair facility's labor rate is $70.00 per hour and they are also charging a flat labor rate of $1,000.00 for the engine repair. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract she is responsible for the difference in labor rate and time. CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. However, CARS is still willing to authorize the January 19, 2015 engine claim in the amount of $1,519.00, once we receive confirmation if the customer wants us to ship the engine or she wants to use the money allowance for the 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.

Review: We bought a warranty to cover power train issues on a used vehicle. We picked the vehicle up it had intermitten heat issues. The dealer we bought the vehicle from, tried to make it right for us by replacing the thermostat in the vehicle, because the heat was working intermittenly, the dealer thought that was the problem. We picked the truck up a few days later and it seemed to be ok for the ride home. The next day we were having the same problem with the heat. We took it to another garage to check out the problem. The garage said they checked the truck and bled lines. The diagnostics showed that it was probably a blown head gasket, but they wouldn't know that unless they tore the truck apart. We took the truck to a garage that had more experience with the warranty company. We received a call from the warranty company saying they would review the claim. The garage called us about an hour later stating that the claim will not be covered because it was a preexsisting condition. We are not mechanics and assumed the problem was with the heat, since it was working randomly. The warranty company said that their warranty only started the day it was approved it, which was six days after the warranty was actually purchased. Yes we knew there was a problem with the heat, but there was no way we knew that there was a blown head gasket until the problem was diagnosed almost a week and a half after we purchased the truck. The warranty company is now refusing to honor the warranty that was purchased.Desired Settlement: We would like to have the warranty company cover the the expense to have the truck fixed, per their warranty we paid for.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID [redacted] 2003 FORD F150 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 30, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 6, 2014. On that same date he applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) which was received by CARS and approved with payment on December 10. 2014. (See attached Service Contract). On December 30, 2014 at 9:45 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On December 30, 2014 at 10:06 a.m., in a recorded telephone call with a CARS customer service representative, the customer stated that his vehicle started experiencing heating issues when leaving the dealership on the date of purchase of December 6, 2014. The customer then stated that the selling dealer replaced the thermostat, but the customer felt however, that this did not fix the problem. During this same conversation the customer also stated he took the vehicle to another repair facility on December 13, 2014 where they did a pressure check. The new repair facility advised that the head gasket was bad and they also noticed the vehicle had a new water pump. The customer advised that he checked the vehicle's oil which looked white and milky on the oil fill cap. On December 30, 2014 at 10:34 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the head gasket. The vehicle was losing coolant, oil was dripping from the rear of the motor, a light was out in the dash, and the head gasket was leaking oil and coolant. During that telephone conversation we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the vehicle. On December 30, 2014 at 11:06 a.m. the customer was advised by CARS that the head gasket failure was in progress prior to CARS’ acceptance of the customer's service contract application. It was explained thoroughly to the customer that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the vehicle. Please be advised that by the customer's signature on his service contract application, he read, understood, and agreed to the covered components terms and conditions. Directly above the customer's signature it states, as well as under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 2 (c): "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) This application is received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase.”

Review: In January, 2012, I purchased a used vehicle (2004 GMC 2500HD) from [redacted]. At the time of purchase, I was offered an extended warranty through Cars Protection Plus. They had several options, and I chose to purchase this coverage. As the vehicle I was purchasing had had its suspension modified with a lift kit, the owner of the dealership called the warranty company to ensure that the power train would still be covered under their policy. The representative, [redacted], informed us that any aftermarket pieces of the suspension would not be covered, but that the remainder of the vehicle would, in fact, still be covered if I purchased the more expensive Protection Package (the Value Plus Package priced at $995.00 with 48 months of coverage and unlimited mileage).Of course, I jumped right in, thinking that it was a tremendous safety net in the event that something went wrong with the vehicle.A few weeks ago, I had some issues with the vehicle not starting and running a little rough when it did. I called Cars Protection Plus and asked them the procedure for getting it fixed. Long story short, they told me to take it to a repair shop to verify the malfunction, but, when the repair shop confirmed the issue, the adjustor from their company denied the repair due to the suspension modification.I got online immediately to get more information on the claim denial and found that they had already cancelled the contract that I had paid for in 2012 and I was unable even to get an information that way.I called customer service there and was informed that they would not honor their end of the contract, which, had I known, I would never have purchased in the first place.Desired Settlement: I would like Cars Protection Plus to honor their end of the contract. As a business, they are responsible for the commitments that their employees make in the selling of their product. The question was brought to them specifically concerning the suspension at the time of purchase and the answer was described above. I would like them to cover the costs ($3,840.00) of the repair of the mechanical failure that was unrelated to the suspension modification.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 25, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:

The customer states in his complaint that prior to service contract purchase, he spoke to a CARS representative regarding coverage for his altered/modified vehicle. Please be advised that CARS has no record of any conversations between any of CARS' sales representatives, the customer or dealer regarding the customer's altered/ modified vehicle being determined an "exception” for service contract coverage. Additionally, only CARS’ management has the authority to make decisions regarding any "exceptions” for coverage of any normally ineligible vehicles.

Therefore, CARS believed that the customer’s vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on January 12, 2012. It was not until the processing of the September 16, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. lift kit and oversize tires) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer’s specifications. In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

At this time, however in effort to assist the customer with the repairs, CARS is willing to refund the full amount listed as the purchase price on the service contract (i.e. $995.00). However, due to the circumstances surrounding this matter, we will require a General Release to be signed by the customer prior to us sending him the refund.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the customer's witnessed and notarized signature, in the event the customer is agreeable. Upon our receipt of the fully executed and notarized General Release, CARS will send the refund check directly to the customer.

By the customer's signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read and the limited warranty application and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under terms and conditions: “PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY: Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the limited warranty." Additionally, "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or limited warranty for cause as determined by CARS."

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers and/or repair facilities, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer's service is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS service contracts.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

Review: I paid for a two year warranty and only used it once until now for head gasket replacement. now they are saying they cancelled my contract do to me not having the drive shaft on my car (AWD). the drive shaft carrier bearing came apart while driving so I had to take the drive shaft off on the side of the road just to get home because I don't have the money for a tow truck or the $250 dollar to have it fixed at that time. ( I did have it replaced once already) I asked them if I had the drive shaft put back on my car by a garage and I paid for it would they warranty the head gasket replacement they said no. because the vehicle was altered. I know people that cars warranty company has helped out like this. but they would not help me out and on the contract it does not state what altered means. they told me you can change your tire and it will vote the warranty. this is a scam.Desired Settlement: I would like then to warranty the work like the contract states or give me my money back. I cant afford $1,500 to have my car fixed. That is way I purchase the warranty.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 22, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 5, 2011, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 105,350 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on December 20, 2011 (the attached “Service Contract”).

Since the inception of the customer’s service contract two (2) claims were opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

FIRST CLAIM: On August 28, 2012 at 9:06 a.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the driveshaft. During the processing of the claim, the repair facility advised us that the center support bearing was coming apart and the front part of the driveshaft on the transmission had seized. CARS authorized the repair and upon receipt of the final invoice, on September 4, 2012 CARS paid the repair facility $183.00 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

SECOND CLAIM: On October 21, 2013 at 10:13 a.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the head gasket. We then went over our claim procedures.

During the processing of the claim the customer advised us in a recorded phone call that he removed the driveshaft approximately two months earlier due to it rotting away. On October 22, 2012 at 11:04 a.m., we advised the repair facility that the claim was denied pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract and that CARS was cancelling the customer’s service contract because the vehicle was altered/modified from the manufacturer’s specifications. The repair facility stated that they would let the customer know of our decision.

On October 22, 2013 at 11:20 a.m., the customer telephoned us to find out why the service contract was cancelled. We advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, alterations/modifications void the service contract. The customer stated that he took the driveshaft off because it had failed and we advised that the drive shaft had been off the vehicle for two (2) months. The customer asked to speak to a manager.

On October 22, 2013 at 11:20 a.m., a claims manager telephoned the customer. The customer advised that he still has the driveshaft and questioned if he were to put the driveshaft back on the vehicle would the claim be covered. The claims manager advised the customer that we were not able to assist with the claim and the service contract was cancelled. The claims manager further explained that when the customer took the driveshaft off of his vehicle and drove the vehicle without a driveshaft, the customer did alter the vehicle.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature, the customer acknowledged that the customer read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. The service contract clearly states: PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE

CONTRACT: “Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the limited warranty” and “We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or limited warranty for cause as determined by CARS.” In addition, it is stated under Cancellation Provisions: “If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the warranty is cancelled and no refund shall be issued C.A.R.S”

As stated above, prior to learning that the customer’s vehicle was altered from the manufacturer’s specification, a claim was opened on behalf of a repair facility for the customer’s vehicle. There is a monthly cost of maintaining each and every service contract that is accepted by CARS. There are also administrative costs with keeping the customer’s service contract in force each month, in addition to processing claims. Here, the customer’s vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS December 20, 2011. It was not until the processing of the October 22, 2013 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications done to the customer’s vehicle. The alterations/modifications of the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer’s specifications. In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

Please be advised that CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facilities and customers, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. In this instance CARS believed that the customer’s vehicle met the eligibility requirements and continued to administer the service contract on a monthly basis.

We also would like to point out here that CARS did pay $183.00 for a driveshaft claim opened on August 28, 2012 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. At that time, CARS was not made aware of any alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract and therefore stands behind its original decision to deny the claim and also cancel the service contract. In addition, the customer is not entitled to a refund pursuant to the 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 have a warranty through cars I have had it from 2/2013 I filed a claim 7/31/13 because my motor blowed up in my truck the reason they said it was denied was because the truck had 28 miles since feb they want to refund my money and not cover the motor because it don't have enough miles on it but if I put 24001 miles on it they would have turned me down for over mile is this what kind of company that has a Revdex.com of a a+ is it right for them to refund my money because it don't have enough miles because I hardly drive it is this what they do to people they discover that the motor is more than I paid for the warranty so they want to refund there money and say there is a mile issue I say bull this company needs to be closed down for only paying what they wantDesired Settlement: I want my motor replaced that is it pay the repair bill what they are supposed to do

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 6, 2013 enclosing a consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 2, 2013 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 197,069 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). On March 7, 2013 the service contract application was accepted with payment and approved by CARS (the attached “Service Contract”).

On July 8, 2013 at 1:52 p.m. we received a telephone call form [redacted] at the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the engine. [redacted] also advised us that 197,197 miles registered on the odometer. We then went over our claims procedures with [redacted].

During the processing of the claim, the repair facility advised us that the oil pump had failed and there was scoring to the driver’s side cam shaft due to a lack of lubrication. Based on the findings of the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection was necessary to verify the cause and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.

The independent inspection occurred on August 2, 2013. The independent inspector advised us that 197,097 miles registered on the odometer. The independent inspector found the vehicle outside with no lift available to inspect the crankshaft and underside of the vehicle. Excessive scoring to all of the rods and main bearings was found. One of the rod bearings showed heat discoloration and had spun inside the connecting rod. The oil pan had an excessive amount of sealant on the block sealing surface indicating that it had been removed previously. The independent inspector found the cause of failure to be a rod bearing which caused metal circulation throughout the engine damaged the rod and main bearings.

Due to the mileage reported by the dealer when the vehicle was purchased (197,069), and the mileage reported by the independent inspector (197,097 miles), the vehicle would have been driven only 28 miles prior to the rod bearing failure. We performed a [redacted] report and it revealed that the customer lived 27.4 miles from the dealer. In addition, on August 5, 2013 at 1:25 p.m., the customer advised us that he had driven the vehicle at least 130 miles and was unsure why the mileage would be low.

Review: On March 25,2016 we went to [redacted] Auto in [redacted] to purchase a vehicle where we had previously purchased a 2003 ford f-150 truck on July 31, 2014 & purchased CARS protection Value Plus unlimited mileage 36 month plan for $995.00. Never had a claim on said truck. Everything we inquired about being a claim was not a covered claim. [redacted] owner of [redacted] auto filled out the cancellation request for the warranty & faxed it to CARS on March 25, 2016 the same day the truck was paid off. The truck was financed by [redacted] Auto in [redacted]. In the service contract it states that if the vehicle was financed the refund will be sent to the lien company a prorated monthly refund of the amount received by CARS for the service contract less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00) . We feel we should be refunded the amount of money left on the contract less the $50.00 service fee which comes to $995.00 / 36 = $27.64 per month X 16 remaining months = $442.22-$50.00 = $392.22. Spoke with CARS today & was told that we are not due a refund because said truck has been paid off ??Desired Settlement: The remaining amount of the service contract due to us in the amount of $392.22 to the finance company where the contract was financed. Our account is still active there & I have been in contact with them & they are aware of the refund process & have said that when a refund comes in they will send us a check !

Business

Response:

April 19, 2016VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITERE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2003 FORD F150 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your April 18, 2016, letter enclosing the consumer complaint and respond as follows: On July 31, 2014, the customers purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customers also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on August 1, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract").On March 25, 2016 at 1:40 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the selling dealer who sold the customers their above-referenced vehicle. The dealer was inquiring about a potential refund of the customers Service Contract and the amount of any refund because the customers no longer owned the vehicle. During that telephone call, we explained to the selling dealer several times that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customers' Service Contract and Kentucky State statute, the customers would only be entitled to a pro-rated refund if there was currently a lien on the vehicle. CARS also explained to the selling dealer that the customers would also be required to fill out and submit a Service Contract Cancellation Form. CARS then faxed to the selling dealer the Service Contract Cancellation Form to be executed by the customers.On April 2, 2016, CAR received the Service Contract Cancellation Form executed by the customers, which stated that the vehicle loan was paid off. Thereafter, on April 5, 2016, CARS mailed a Refund Rejection to the customers advising them that no refund was available since the lien on the vehicle was paid off. See copies of the Cancellation Form and Refund Rejection attached for your review.On April 15, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from one of the customers inquiring as to why the refund request was rejected. During that telephone call, she advised that on the date they submitted the Cancellation Form, the lien on the vehicle was paid off. During that telephone call, we advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Conti act, there would be no prorated refund available since there was no longer a lien on the vehicle. We further explained to the customer that no refund would be available unless the vehicle was declared a total loss or if the vehicle was repossessed by the lien holder. By the customers' signature on their Service Contract, they acknowledged that they read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of their Service Contract, It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraphs 4 (a) & (d): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by CARS for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at anytime by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a monthly prorated refund of the amount received by CARS for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid.”Please be also 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 not directed by any state statute in Kentucky to provide the customers with any prorated refund of their Service Contract.As stated above, CARS clearly advised the selling dealer on March 25, 2016 that the customers would only be entitled to a prorated refund, if there was still a lien on the vehicle; however, since the Service Contract Cancellation Form stated that the lien on the vehicle was paid off, the customers are not entitled to any refund pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of their Service Contract.After considerable review and in an effort to amicably resolve this matter, CARS in a good will gesture, will approve and process a prorated refund to the customers through the dealer. The total amount of the prorated refund due the customer is $364.78. According to our calculations, CARS is responsible for $282.92, which will be sent to the dealer from CARS. This amount is based on the total amount of money received by CARS from the dealer for the wholesale cost of the customers’ service contract, less twenty-one (21) months utilized on their Service Contract, and also less a $50.00 cancellation fee.Once the prorated refund is processed and mailed, CARS will provide the Revdex.com with written verification that the refund was sent The dealer will also be responsible for his portion of the customers' refund of $81.67, which is the prorated amount based on the markup/profit that the dealer retained when the Service Contract was purchased by the customers.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 have attempted to call the business multiple times as well as email the business in regards to getting a replacement ID card but have not been able to make contact with the business.Desired Settlement: Send a replacement ID for Vin #[redacted]

to my home address: [redacted]

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 [redacted] VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated July 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 7, 2014 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on that same day, January 16, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract"). The customer has Service Contract coverage through January 16, 2018. CARS was able to reach the customer via the email address he provided on his Revdex.com complaint to verify his Service Contract Coverage. The customer's replacement ID card was mailed to him today, August 4, 2015. For this reason, we believe this matter to be resolved. CARS' normal business hours are Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Messages can be left for CARS during non-business hours and telephone calls will be returned the next business day. We have provided the customer with an email address for my office if he experiences any issues with his ID card. 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]Attachment

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: Upon purchase of a used vehicle on the 25th of March, 2015 I was offered a warranty at a certain price. This warranty covered the vehicle for ninety days after purchase. Approximately two weeks ago the vehicle sprang a leak I ended up with quarts of oil all over the driveway. I had the vehicle towed to a local mechanic to determine the problem. There was a leak in the timing belt cover. Upon contacting the CARS Protection Plus we were informed that the warranty did not cover this problem and that gaskets and seals were considered fair wear and tear items. What kind of warranty is this? Why is it allowed to be sold. Initially, it obviously leaves one to believe for at least ninety days he or she is covered.Contract # [redacted] Deductible $100.00 Effective date 3/25/15Expiration date 6/25/15 2001 Volvo [redacted]Desired Settlement: I would like a refund and if possible the cost of repairs which is estimated at over $1000.00

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 12, 2015, 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 19, 2015. On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 25, 2015 (See attached Service Contract). On May 11, 2015, at 1:11 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing a timing cover leak. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On May 11, 2015, at 1:24 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing a major oil leak. The repair facility further advised that the timing cover was leaking oil. We advised the repair facility that the timing cover, seals and gaskets, are non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim. By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract: "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 timing cover is not listed for coverage; therefore, it is the responsibility of the customer to repair.It is also stated on the customer's Service Contract under "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS, GASKETS, & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component.” Here, the seal in the timing cover is not covered because the customer's vehicle does not need to have any covered parts replaced.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 components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.In his consumer complaint the customer is asking for a refund of his Service Contract. CARS is regulated by state statutes regarding customer refunds. Here, no state statute in Virginia requires CARS to refund service contract; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time.CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the May 11, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.The customer has service contract coverage through June 25, 2015. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,[redacted]General Counsel

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. However, I find that the legal definition of satisfactory is far from acceptable. We purchase used vehicles with the understanding that things happen and try to compensate with these so called warranties in my case to the tune of $469.00 for a mere 90 days. Am I the only one who sees the injustice here?

Paid for an extended warranty that appears based on the call I got from the dealer that covers nothing. This place is a joke.

Review: This complaint deals with A used vehicle purchased at a dealership. I bought the extended warranty, thru the dealership, with the warranty company called Cars Protection out of **. I have the value plus plan which covers almost everything there is to cover. My transmission failed on 9/11/15. I took it to a transmission shop and had them file the claim with Cars Protection. I found out on 9/16 that a portion of the cost will be covered by the warranty but not all of it. Which is my first complaint. How exactly does only a portion of this get covered and I still have to come up with $600? Secondly, the policy states that for every 8 hours OF WORK that the vehicle needs I am eligible for a rental car. Im told the "allotted" time for this repair is 6 hours, and therefore don't qualify for a rental, yet Cars Protection will not have the part available to my repair shop for 5-7 days! Wouldn't the reasonable person interpret repair time as the amount of DAYS to fix the vehicle rather than the exact amount of time that a mechanic will spend on the vehicle?Desired Settlement: Cover the whole cost of the repair and provide a vehicle while my vehicle is out of service. I spoke to the repair shop. If I was paying "retail" to have the car fixed, it would be ready in 1 day. Since Cars Protection needs to supply the used part to put in, it will now take 5-7 days for the part to arrive. This is ludicrous and unacceptable.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2007 FORD E250 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 16, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 1, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 18, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”). On September 14, 2015 at 3:45 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was experiencing transmission issues with his vehicle. CARS then reviewed our claims procedures and his Service Contract coverage with the customer. On September 14, 2015 at 3:56 p.m., CARS again reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage with him. On September 14, 2015 at 4:08 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On September 14, 2015 at 4:41 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was no fourth gear in the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised that there were no other concerns. 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 that any repairs done without prior authorization would be denied by CARS. CARS advised the repair facility to get back to CARS with their findings. On September 16, 2015 the repair facility advised CARS in writing on their estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle that the support snap ring failed causing damage to the rev drum. On September 16, 2015 at 10:49 a.m., we went over the amount CARS could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the transmission for $820.00. CARS was able to assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $84.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 5.2 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $312.00. 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 $1,116.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $212.00 towards labor or pay $1,116.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We also went over the shipping details with the repair facility. We advised the repair facility to telephone CARS with the customer’s decision. On September 16, 2015 at 11:22 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to have CARS ship the transmission to the repair facility. CARS then advised that we would telephone the repair facility with an authorization number and estimated time of arrival. On September 16, 2015 at 11:23 a.m., the claim adjustor advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, he was not eligible for rental benefits. On September 16, 2015 at 11:34 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the customer’s rental benefits with him pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. On September 16, 2015 at 3:32 p.m., CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. CARS further advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival date of the transmission was September 24, 2015 or September 25, 2015. By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. The rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract state: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Here, the September 14, 2015 transmission claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle was authorized for 5.2 hours of labor to replace the transmission based on Mitchell OnDemand labor guide; therefore, the customer is not entitled to rental benefits under his Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states at 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.” As you can see from the above paragraphs, CARS processed the transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle within two (2) business days and the shipping details were provided to the repair facilities that the customer could make a choice regarding his options for assistance from CARS. It 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 September 14, 2015 claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the repair facility's labor rate was $85.00 dollars per hour. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 5.2 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. CARS authorized the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the service contract and the customer is responsible for the difference. 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. For all of the reasons stated in the above paragraphs, CARS stands behind our decision regarding the September 14, 2015 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle and is unable to offer any further assistance with the claim. The customer has Service Contract coverage through November 18, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

Review: Warranty company cancelled contract and failed to pay out on repair bill claim of 7500.00 (for replacement of vehicle engine)stating that I modified vehicle because of aftermarket wheels.Desired Settlement: For Cars Protection Plus to pay the full amount of claim of $7475.00 and to no longer be able to sell their protects in the state of [redacted]

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2004 [redacted] VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of the customer letter dated August 20, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 20, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on April 25, 2013. (See attached Service Contract). On July 7, 2015 at 11:41 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 7, 2015 at 1:25 p.m., the customer advised CARS that the customer's vehicle made a quick hesitation and then a noise while driving with cruise control on at seventy (70) miles per hour. The customer further advised that the customer then saw blue smoke from the rear of the customer’s vehicle and when the customer pulled over the customer observed oil dripping on the right side of the customer’s vehicle. The customer advised CARS that the customer would have the customer's repair facility fax maintenance records for the customer's vehicle to CARS. On July 7, 2015 at 1:48 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was a broken rod in the engine and a hole in the block. The repair facility advised CARS that there were no modifications to the customer’s vehicle. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to pull the spark plug on the cylinder that failed to check for coolant or water getting into the cylinder. On July 8, 2015 at 9:58 a.m., CARS requested that the repair facility obtain the customer's authorization to tear down the customer's vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the customer were responsible for all costs related to the tear down/diagnostics to the customer's vehicle per the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. We again reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. Eight days later, on July 16, 2015 at 9:44 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure to the customer's vehicle was that the head gasket was breached between cylinders 2 and 4 which caused the engine to hydro lock. The repair facility advised that they would send photographs to CARS. On July 16, 2015 at 10:43 a.m., after review of the photographs sent by the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer's vehicle was necessary to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. The independent inspection occurred the very next day on July 17, 2015. The independent inspector found the customer’s vehicle to have oversize wheels and oversize tires. After management review of the independent inspection, CARS determined that the customer's Service Contract was now cancelled and CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle due to the alterations/modification to the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Term and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. On July 20, 2015 at 10:30 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer's Service Contract was cancelled and CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed by CARS. On July 23, 2015 at 1:28 p.m., in a recorded telephone call with CARS the customer advised that the wheels were changed for aesthetics not performance. On July 28, 2015, CARS sent the attached letter to the customer advising him of CARS' decision and the cancellation of his Service Contract coverage regarding his July 7, 2015 engine claim. By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Ultimate Value Service Contract the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(d): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer's specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed.” The customer's service contract also states at Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the service contract." and "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS." On July 7, 2015, the repair facility advised CARS that there were no modifications to the customer's vehicle; however, in a recorded telephone call on July 13, 2015 the customer advised CARS that the wheels on the customer's vehicle were changed for aesthetics. In addition, the independent inspector found the wheels/tires on the customer's vehicle to be modified; therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract CARS cancelled the customer's Service Contract for modifications/alterations of the wheel/tire size. The alterations/modifications of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. The alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle. Here, if Garrett had advised CARS of the oversize wheels and oversize tires on the customer’s vehicle, CARS would have cancelled the customer’s Service Contract immediately and not moved forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. It is also stated in our cancellation policies for altered/modified vehicles are clearly stated at Paragraph 5 (c): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued." As stated in the Terms and Conditions of the service contract, the customer is not entitled to a refund of the customer's Service Contract. CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facilities, independent inspections and customers since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service immediately. The customer’s Service Contract is void due to the alterations/modifications; therefore, the customer no longer has service coverage under any of CARS service contracts. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If the customer has any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Review: I recently purchased a vehicle at a dealership that sells used cars. Because it was used, I purchased a 24 month, unlimited miles extended service contract along with it, just in case something went wrong. Two weeks after I bought the vehicle, the brakes went out and I tie rod broke. I paid for these to be fixed out of my pocket. Same week the speedometer kept reading wrong. The shortly after the gas gauge was reading incorrectly and I would run out of gas even the gauge showed more than a quarter full. I began calling around and was having trouble finding anyone that would accept the warranty because I was told the company does not settle up on the claims as they should.On January 14th, 2015 I was driving home from work and the headlights kept getting dimmer. The battery light came on and the vehicle eventually quit because the battery was drained. I left the vehicle and the next morning call my insurance company to have it towed to a dealership that had been trying to get a claim authorized to fix the speedometer and fuel level and pressure sensors. The dealership said the thermostat and alternator also needed to be replaced. At that time, in order to get all the components fixed, I was going to have to pay $1990.00 plus tax. The components and services charges as follows: Alternator, $395; Thermostat, $295; Fuel Level sensor, $525; Fuel pressure sensor, $325; Dash Cluster, $450. I would expect that all of the aforementioned parts would have been included, however I was told that the only thing they would cover is the alternator and the service fee for the thermostat that Cars Plus would ship a used thermostat to the dealership. The thermostat shipment would take 2 days, and in the interim, Cars Plus will not pay for the rental car. I asked the dealership to hold off and contacted the dealership where I bought the vehicle and I also called Cars Protection Plus. Cars Protection Plus stated the parts were not covered because it doesnt affect the vehicle from operating. I explained that I run out of gas, even though there is gas in the tank. I commute more that 140 miles a day for work and it can be a risk to me to be broke down in a rural area in sub zero temperatures. The person on the phone stated it did not matter that the parts and service are not covered. In addition, I contacted the original dealership where the vehicle and service contract was purchased, I was told they were not aware it wouldn't cover those parts and they would call their rep and see what they could do. There was not an offer to stand by the vehicle they sold to me and pay for any of the parts.I have read the contract multiple times and feel that the company that is selling service contracts are using deceptive practices. They are selling a contract that is basically worthless. When did it become necessary that I will have to take a lawyer with me to by a car? I feel I have been cheated. I put $3000 down on the vehicle, added another 1200 plus to have a warranty and have a vehicle that is not running and I have only owned it since the last week in October 2014.Desired Settlement: I would like all the parts I had to pay for reimbursed to me in full. Or a full refund on the service contract.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 19, 2015, 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 October 27, 2014. On that same date she also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 29, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). On January 14, 2015, at 4:32 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. Since the vehicle was not at the repair facility, we advised the repair facility to open a new claim when the vehicle was present. CARS then closed the claim. On the following day, January 15, 2015 at 2:36 p.m. the same repair facility telephoned CARS to open a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility advised that the vehicle was experiencing dash cluster, fuel level sensor, headlight, thermostat, fuel tank pressure sensor, rear shocks, alternator and battery issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. That same date at 3:00 p.m., we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract as follows: We could supply an alternator for $127.48 and the thermostat for $20.66. We would also allow $14.00 for fluid. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 1.8 hours to complete and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $108.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $170.14, once the deductible was applied. We then advised Jimmy that CARS was not able to assist with the repair of the dash cluster, fuel level sensor, headlight, fuel tank pressures sensor, rear shocks and battery, because some of the repairs are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract and some of the repairs (i.e. headlights, rear shocks and battery) are maintenance items and all would be the customer's responsibility to repair.On January 19, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would take the money allowance for the claim. An authorization number was then given for the repair. Once we receive the final invoice verifying that the repairs are completed, CARS will pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's 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 of her Service Contract. 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 dash cluster, fuel level sensor, headlight, fuel tank pressure sensor, rear shocks and battery are not listed for coverage; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair.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 components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.Therefore, CARS was correct when we were only able to offer assistance for the alternator and thermostat for all the reasons stated above; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the remaining repairs pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.Additionally, the customer states in her complaint that she is not happy that she was not given any rental benefits, and also is requesting a refund of her Service Contract. 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. No state statute in Michigan requires CARS to refund service contracts; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time.The customer's service contract states under Terms and conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at anytime by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid."Also, the customer’s service contract states under: "COVERED COMPONENTS: RENTAL BENEFITS: The Service Contract Holder will reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide to repair or replace the covered component..." Here, since Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should only take 1.8 hours to complete, the customer is not entitled to any rental benefits 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: On September 24,2014 I delivered my 2003 Cadillac Deville to [redacted] for repairs on the radiator and two lean codes. The vehicle was diagnosed on September 25,2014 with a warped intake manifold and a cracked radiator. Both problems covered in my warranty with Cars Protection Plus. Cars Protection Plus was then contacted by [redacted] on September 25,2015 and was notified about the two problems. Tim, who opened the claim , had told [redacted] that he would call them back that same day but no later than the next business day with an answer on what the warranty will do about the claim. The warranty failed to contact [redacted] when they said they would. [redacted] was contacted by Cars Protection Plus on September 30,2014,four business days later after Cars Protection Plus was notified of the repairs that were covered in my warranty, and told that Cars Protection Plus will be mailing [redacted] used parts because they can get them cheap and the parts will be at the shop Friday or Saturday. I contacted CARS personally and asked about a rental car since it is going to take nine to ten days to get started on fixing my car covered in a warranty. I was told no because CARS said I don't get a rental benefit for down time regardless of the reason. In conclusion,It is now October 5.2014 and the parts still have not been delivered and I am still without transportation. The work on my car takes close to six hours to fix and it has been eleven days and counting without a car because my warranty,Cars Protection Plus,wants to use the cheapest used parts they can find to fix my car, which is only a temporary fix since they are used parts, and mail them by standard shipping. They wouldn't even pay the extra money to ship them overnight. I can`t believe this business has an A+ ratingDesired Settlement: I would like a full refund so I can fix my car the way it should be fixed.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 5, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On April 22, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on May 10, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract").

Since the inception the Customer’s Service contract, five (5) claims have been opened as follows:

Review: For several months now I have been trying to have my vehicle repaired using my extended warranty with Cars Protection Plus. My claim has been denied. They are claiming the reson for the defined claim is because of an accident, the claim is for the right side of the car. The accident was on the left and completely cover and repair by hewkin auto body with a 100% life time warranty. The problem is on the right!!!!Desired Settlement: Refund for repairs made or vehicle NOT related to accident.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 1, 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 26, 2013. 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 March 26, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

Since the inception the customer's Service Contract, three (3) claims have been opened as follows:

FIRST CLAIM: On December 26, 2013 at 11:08 a.m., in a recorded telephone call, a repair

facility advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right CV axle, intermediate shaft/carrier bearings, left front wheel bearing, control arm/ball joint and CV boot issues due to the customer’s vehicle being involved in an accident. After reviewing the estimate provided by the repair facility, CARS telephoned the customer and advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions his service contract, we were unable to offer assistance. CARS explained that any issues that result from an accident are not covered by the service contract and advised him to call his vehicle insurance carrier. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On February 4, 2014, at 3:02 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front axle issues. The repair facility advised that both front axles were leaking grease. No verified failure was found by the repair facility in regard to the front axles other than the boots were leaking grease. We then advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, we would be unable to assist with the claims because the boots are non-covered components under the service contract.

THIRD CLAIM: On August 13, 2014, at 10:10 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair

facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing right front axle, left front wheel bearing, left wheel, tire and belt tensioner issues. We advised the repair facility that we would need receipts from previous repairs to review since the customer's vehicle was involved in an accident in December of 2013. We also advised that we were unable to assist with the belt tensioner repair because the claim allowance was $90.76 which was less than the $100.00 deductible. That was the last communication that CARS had with the repair facility. As of said date, we have never received the requested receipts. After thirty (30) days without any contact from the repair facility or the customer, the claim was closed by CARS.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under the terms and conditions at 1 (k): "COMPONENTS AND

EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage from fire and/or accident, regardless of the cause." On

December 26, 2013 in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right CV axle, intermediate shaft/carrier bearings, left front wheel bearing, control arm/ball joint and CV boot issues due to the customer’s vehicle being involved in an accident.

Furthermore, it is stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 2 (t): “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: You must retain all vehicle maintenance/repair records for review at the request of CARS.” CARS requested the repair receipts associated with the December 26, 2013 claim; however, the requested repair receipts were never provided.

In addition, under the customer's Service Contract, we are 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 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 is willing to provide receipts from previous repairs to his vehicle for our review and if the issues listed on the August 13, 2014 claim have not yet been repaired, the customer should open a new claim on behalf of his vehicle. After CARS reviews the findings of the repair facility and reviews the repair receipts, CARS will then be able to determine if any assistance is available for the repair 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: I bought an extended warranty for a 2004 Vw Touareg through Cas Protection Plus however when I had taken my car to a dealership, they don't accept Cars because they have in the past and were never paid for the service. I paid several hundreds of dollars for a service that the dealership will not use. C.A.R.S has been called and it was explained to them as to what was going on and their typical response was that they can not help that the dealership will not use their company. I have paid $1600+ to fix a car only to have the company say that it is not there problem because the proper steps were not taken. If a dealership will not accept the company and an individual can not file a claim themselves, what is the point of selling a service that can not be used. Furthermore what is the point of calling customer service and speaking to the supervisor Andrea, who continues to say that it is the owners responsibility to find a company to accept their product when a Wolkswagen dealership will not accept their warranty because the company did not physically pay them. I find that this does not make sense and that the company does not stand behind its products.Desired Settlement: Either pay for having the car fixed at my expense or to be refunded the cost of the warranty due to the fact that the money paid, has been thrown away.

Business

Response:

April 19, 2016VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com websiteRE: COMPLAINT ID #1[redacted]PREVIOUS COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2004 VOLKSWAGON TOUAREG VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms, [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated April 19, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. This instant complaint was filed by the actual consumer; however, please note that the same issues contained in this consumer complaint are the same issues contained in Complaint ID #[redacted], which was originally filed by an individual who was not the customer. Both complaints are in regard to the Service Contract coverage for the above-referenced vehicle,CARS promptly responded to that consumer complaint on April 8, 2016. A copy of which is attached for your review. However, I again respond as follows:Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract only one (1) claim was opened by a repair facility, then authorized and paid by CARS on behalf of the customer's vehicle as follows:On October 28, 2015 at 3:39 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing fuel pump issues. During that initial telephone call, CARS went over the claim procedures in detail with the repair facility.After it was determined that the failed component was covered, CARS authorized the fuel pump repair in the total amount of $306.78 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract. After the repair facility provided CARS with its final repair invoice, CARS paid the repair facility on November 24, 2015 via check. The claim was then closed. See attached final invoice.On April 6, 2016 at 11:24 a.m., the customer’s boyfriend telephoned CARS and advised that he had repairs performed on the vehicle two (2) weeks prior. During that call we advised the customer's boyfriend that we would be unable to assist with that repair, because the proper claim procedures were not followed. 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 an estimate 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, because no initial claim was called in by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle, 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.As you can see from the above paragraphs, there was a previous claim opened, authorized and paid on behalf of the customer's vehicle; therefore, the customer was aware of the proper claim procedures. To reiterate, CARS was never contacted regarding the customer's recent mechanical issues and 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.Please also be advised that our claims manager contacted the previous repair facility to ascertain as to whether or not the repair facility was currently in business and capable of performing the repairs on the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised our claims manager that they were currently in business and capable of performing repairs on vehicles. Therefore, the customer had the opportunity to take her vehicle to this repair facility to have a claim properly opened pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contractFor these reasons, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we are unable to assist with the claim due to failure to follow proper claim procedures which must be followed by ail CARS’ customers.The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through May 30, 2016. Should the customer’s vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her 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.At this time ! would also like to address the customer's request for a refund. By the customers' signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of their Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 4(a): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated.”Also, 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 not directed by any state statute in [redacted] to provide the customer with any refund of her Service Contract.Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the customer is not eligible for any refund.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%. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. If not, CARS is requesting that you mark both complaints responded to and properly answered by CARS.

Review: I purchased a power train warranty from CARS Protection Plus. This warranty was supposed to cover any vehicle issues that are not wear and tear related. However, CARS Protection Plus refuses to cover the repairs my vehicle needs, even though three diagnostic mechanics have indicated that the problems are power train problems. These repairs should be covered. The agents are CARS Protection Plus are now stating that they refuse to cover the repairs, since they don't consider these issues internal. Each mechanic that has diagnosed the problem states the problems are absolutely internal. I believe I was scammed into purchasing a warranty that covers nothing at all.Desired Settlement: I would like for my repairs to be covered, as they should be by the warranty I purchased. If not, I would like a full refund of the warranty, since it apparently doesn't cover anything.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 FORD E250 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] 1 am in receipt of your letter dated January 13, 2015 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 16, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 19, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). On January 11, 2016 at 2:41 p.m., the customer advised CARS that his vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS than went over his Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures and was seeking reimbursement for the repair. The customer further advised that calipers had been replaced on January 7, 2016. CARS advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS could not offer any assistance with the caliper replacement since the replacement had not been authorized by CARS. On January 11, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing tail shaft seal, bushings, and rear caliper issues. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was not at the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility that the seal and bushings were non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract. The repair facility further advised that the calipers were already replaced. The repair facility began to argue that the seal and bushings were part of the transmission. We then advised the repair facility to contact the customer and have him return the vehicle to the repair facility so that a claim could be opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. On January 11, 2016 at 3:49 p.m., the repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing tail shaft seal, bushings, and rear caliper issues. The repair facility advised that the calipers had been replaced on January 7, 2016 and the customer had returned his vehicle to the repair facility to open a claim for the tail shaft seal and bushings. On January 12, 2015 at 10:28 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the calipers since a claim was not opened and authorized prior to the repair being performed. CARS further advised that the extension housing on the transmission is a bolt on assembly and not an internal component to the transmission. CARS explained that the bushing was located on the extension housing; therefore, it was not covered under the customer’s Service Contract. CARS further advised that seals are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. On January 12, 2015 at 1:29 p.m., CARS advised the customer that CARS pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle. CARS advised that we could not assist with the calipers since a claim was not opened and authorized prior to the repair being performed. CARS further advised that the extension housing on the transmission is a bolt on assembly and not an internal component to the transmission. CARS explained that the bushing was located on the extension housing; therefore, it was not covered under his Service Contract. CARS further advised that seals are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed. On January 12, 2015 at 1:31 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like a refund of his Service Contract. CARS advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract he is not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract. By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” Here, the housing extension is a bolt on assembly and can be purchased separately from the transmission; therefore, it is not covered under the customer's Service Contract. Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, it is the responsibility of the customer to repair the housing extension/bushing. The customer's Service Contract also states under "COVERED COMPONENTS: AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION/TRANSFER CASE: Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing...” and "Transmission/transfer case only if damage by a covered component internal to the transmission/transfer case housing.” Here the bushing is located on the back of the housing extension which is a non-lubricated part; therefore, it is not covered under the customer's Service Contract. Additionally, the housing extension can be purchase separately from the transfer case housing; therefore, it is a separate part from the transmission and transfer case housing. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS Seals and gaskets are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." Here, no covered components are being replaced; therefore, the tail shaft seal is not covered under the customer's Service Contract. It is also stated under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(b): "The repair facility MUST call CARS, at 888-335-6838 to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun.” Here, the customer and the repair facility advised CARS that the calipers were replaced on January 7, 2016, which was prior to a claim being opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle. Therefore, CARS is unable to assist with the replacement of the calipers. For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the January 11, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. In his consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund of his Service Contract. The customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested." and “After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated.” Additionally, CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle in New Jersey stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in New Jersey to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. Therefore, pursuant to his Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund. Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. The customer's Service Contract expired on January 19, 2016. The customer no longer has any coverage under any of CARS' service contracts and no claims can be opened on 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. Sincerely, Jason P. [redacted] General Counsel

Review: I have 2002 jeep grand Cherokee with a bad heater core that they will not fix. I have ball joints and others things that are broke too and all they said they will give me for those repairs are 205 and the mechanic said it will cost over 2000 to repair. for example a ball joint they give you is 5.00 to fix it. to me this is false a advertising. I would not recommend them to any one. they do not fix your car they just take your money and run.Desired Settlement: I want all my repairs fix for free all I want to pay is the deductible and taxis.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 16, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 1, 2014. On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles).

On October 6, 2014 at 9:33 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that he purchased his vehicle on October 1, 2014 and was checking on his coverage. A customer service representative explained that his service contract application had not yet been received by CARS. Our customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with him. Later that same day on October 6, 2014, the customer's service contract was received by CARS and approved with payment (See attached Service Contract).

On October 15, 2014 at 8:59 a.m., a customer service representative telephoned the customer in response to an email submission requesting information. The customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with him.

On October 16, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing heater core, ball joint, axle, axle seal, and valve cover gasket issues. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

On October 16, 2014 at 9:59 a.m., the customer advised us in a recorded telephone conversation that his vehicle began to experience heater core issues just one (1) day after vehicle purchase (i.e. October 2. 2014).

Later that same day 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 oil leak, tie rod end or any other fluid leaks. In addition, we would not be able to assist with the heater core repair, because this failure occurred prior to service contract acceptance as stated above. We then went over the components and amounts we could authorize for the customer's vehicle with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left upper and left front lower ball joints for $11.15 and two (2) front axles for $77.58. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 4.4 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore; total labor was $264.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim for the covered components after the deductible was applied was $252.73, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $164.00 towards labor or pay $252.73 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer's decision. The repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowance. An authorization number was given to the repair facility to begin repairs on the customer's vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. Directly below the customer's signature, it states: "The service contract goes into effect when this application is received with

payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc." In addition, at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures that occur before

C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("C.A.R.S.") approves this Service Contract application are not covered. C.A.R.S. does not warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.” CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. Here, based upon the customer's information, it was determined that the heater core failure was present on October 2, 2014, which was prior to the customer's service contract acceptance with payment by CARS on October 6, 2014; therefore, no assistance for the heater core repair could be offered.

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.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

The service contract states under COVERED COMPONENTS: "SEALS, GASKETS & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." In addition, the service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph l(r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused bv fluid leaks.” Pursuant to the customer's service contract the leaks and gaskets repairs needed for the repair of his vehicle are not covered.

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.

In summary, during the October 16, 2014 recorded telephone call, the customer stated that he began to experience heater core issues on October 2. 2014. just one (1) day after he took his vehicle home from the selling dealership. CARS did not receive and approve the customer's service contract until October 6, 2014: therefore, we are unable to assist with this portion of the mechanical claim. Furthermore, CARS would not be able to assist with any repair regarding the oil leaks. However, as stated above, CARS did authorize the amount of $252.73 towards the covered component repairs (i.e. upper ball joints and front axles) 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.

Consumer

Response:

Review: Have a three month service contract and decline to fix the main problems when we took it [redacted] in town Car quit the first day needs to replace camshaft sensor replace rack and pinion flush power steeringDesired Settlement: Paid the 60 dollArs a hr labor and parts they warranty

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated July 29, 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 lulv 1. 2014. On that same date he applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on lulv 7. 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On July 25, 2014 at 1:13 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the rack & pinion, cam sensor, alignment & flush. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

In a subsequent telephone call with the repair facility on that same date, they advised that prior to the July 25, 2014 claim being opened, the customer previously returned the vehicle to the dealer regarding the mechanical issues; however, the dealer did not rectify the issues.

During the processing of the claim, the customer clearly and concisely advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on July 25, 2014 at 4:20 p.m., that the vehicle was actually purchased on June 30, 2014 and just one day after purchase (i.e. July 1, 2014), the vehicle began to experience mechanical problems, which was the same day that the customer applied for the Service Contract as stated above.

On July 28, 2014 at 9:06 a.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the vehicle, since the information provided by the customer stating that the failures were prior to CARS receiving with payment and approving the customer's service contract on lulv 7. 2014. Therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the above-referenced vehicle pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer's signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. Directly below the customer's signature, it clearly states: "The service contract goes into effect when this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc." In addition, at Paragraph 1(b). "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component

failures that occur before C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("C.A.R.S.") approves this Service Contract application are not covered. C.A.R.S. does not warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.”

As stated previously, during the July 28, 2014 recorded telephone call, the customer stated he began to experience issues with just one (1) day after the June 30, 2014 vehicle purchased date. Please be advised that CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract.

For the reason stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the July 25, 2014, claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. However, the customer has service contract coverage on his vehicle through October 7, 2014. Should the customer incur future mechanical problems; CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the service contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the Customer’s Value Plus Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

Review: I purchased the CARS warranty and followed through with all the required procedures. When my mechanic called to confirm that they indeed would cover the work that needed to be done he was told yes. Upon further review of my claim, it was denied in part. The part that CARS intended on providing me with was a used, non-guaranteed part. They did not cover expenses such as sales tax. I am very upset that initially I was told they would cover all issues concerning my vehicle and was later denied. I expended money on a rental car and also had to pay for all work myself.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of the money that I expended to have my car repaired, including rental car costs, parts and labor.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 8, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On April 13, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 175,046 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on May 6, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On August 22, 2013 at 11:54 a.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the customer was experiencing issues with the brakes. A CARS’ service representative advised the customer that under the customer’s service contract general maintenance for brakes, diagnostics, and alignment are not covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On October 4, 2013 at 1:20 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the customer was experiencing issues with the engine. A CARS’ service representative advised the customer of the customer’s service coverage pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. We also advised the customer of the rental coverage under the customer’s service contract. We also emailed a copy of the customer’s service contract to the customer for review.

On October 30, 2013 at 3:30 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the left front axle shaft assembly, and load detector. A CARS' service representative then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On that same day, CARS telephoned the repair facility for information to move forward with the claim; however, the repair facility informed us that the vehicle had been removed from the repair facility. We explained that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the vehicle must be at the repair facility for a claim to be opened and processed. The repair facility advised that they would telephone the customer and advise them to return their vehicle to the repair facility.

On November 5, 2013 at 1:25 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the left front axle shaft assembly, load detector, and fuse block. 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 as follows: We could supply the left front axle for $57.07. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 1.3 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $78.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $35.07, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the part as stated above; however, no labor was allotted due to the deductible or we would pay $35.07 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On November 5, 2013 at 9:40 a.m., we received a telephone from the customer advising of the mechanical issues with the vehicle. During that telephone call, CARS’ service representative went over the customer’s coverage and our claim procedures. The service representative advised that the deductible is not included in the money allowance towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle. In addition, the service representative went over the rental reimbursement in detail.

On November 6, 2013 at 8:50 a.m., we contacted the repair facility to inquiry if the customer had made a decision on having the part shipped or taking the cash allowance. The repair facility advised us that the customer decided not to use their service contract and that the customer would pay for the claim since we were only authorizing $35.00 for the money allowance towards the repair.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Limited Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. 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 part we use the cost of the part 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 had the choice to have our replacement part shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair of the vehicle. It was the customer’s choice not to utilize her service contract by either having CARS ship the part or the customer taking the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle.

In addition, the deductible is clearly stated in the service contract at Paragraph 2(j): “C.A.R.S. will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract less a one hundred $100.00 dollar deductible per claim. Pursuant to the service contract all claims are subject to a $100.00 deductible.

Please be advised in the customer’s complaint, the customer stated that we did not cover sales tax. The service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1(s): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Taxes and repair facility charges.” CARS is clearly not responsible for sales tax pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract.

Also, the rental benefits of the customer’s service contract clearly states: “The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.”

Since the customer’s repair should have only taken 1.3 hours to complete; the customer is not entitled to any rental benefits.

In addition the customer’s service contract clearly states: “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT at 2(m): 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.” Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS was not responsible for any additional charges other than the claim allowance as explained above.

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.

We would also like to point out here that in addition to the customer’s acknowledgment that the customer had read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract, the customer also had the service contract coverage, including rental benefits, thoroughly explained by a CARS’ service representative. The customer was aware of the coverage that the service contract provided.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any further assistance with the November 5, 2013 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. We believe that we have fulfilled all our obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on November 6, 2013; therefore, no longer has 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.

Review: Well we buy a van dodge 2500 from a dealer [redacted] cars sale and we buyid the warranty with cars protection plus on 12/11/15 and it covers a lot of parts of the engine and transmission the cover is for 3 months or 4500 milles on 02/19/16 its was on Saturday the engine start doind o lot of noise and shaken we call cars protection plus and they were enter we live a masege ans a girl call me on 02/23/16 and a told her about it and she say I can took the van to the mechanic so mechanic told me the engine is mest up no working anymore he say the cranks are not working and mess up a lot of pars like the heat of the engine he say we neen to replaced the engine so we call cars protection plus they never enter we keep calling after someone say the they gannna send a agent and look tje engine so they never came we keep calling so we espok with some tipe a frank and steve thwy tell the mechanic to open the engine bc they want to know exactly the problem but they say they not gling to pay for that so we open the engine we tell they the problem they never enter they only transfer to a difrent operations so we never hear from this company all that I want is this company pay what is on the contract im so estret out we pay cash for the van the mechanic is fixing the van a dont have more money a pay 3500 cash and I have to pay 2000 to fix the van and I dont have the money and im losing job bc I dont have a van a cant not rent want bc they say they dont pay a rent to car and that is on the contract and also the town I just want to someone help me I work in construction this type a company neen to be responsible for they accion they were laft bc im mexican I just need some help and they can pay what they say in the contact .here is the info for the van 2001 dodge ram 2500 vin # [redacted] thanksDesired Settlement: I just. Need. Someone the help me

Consumer

Response:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:25 PM, [redacted] <[redacted]> wrote:Ok I see the paper so we fix the truck we par 2000 dallars now whats can I happend this company tell me to open tje engine we did and we fixed so now what

Check fields!

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

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

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: AUTO WARRANTY PROCESSING SERVICE

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

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

www.carsprotectionplus.com


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

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