C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Absolute junk. I had an emergency where the car broke on a sunday I went out bought my own parts as it was my only vehicle without getting approval from them first (which is hard to do considering they are closed on Sundays). So I went out and spent over 500 on parts and 8 hours worth of work later to rebuild the front end that was completely trashed due to a pot hole I did not see due to water filling it in. I call them on Wednesday after making out my invoice and they said I was required to call the next day, to get it paid for but because I waited 72 hours to call it in due to owning 3 business's and being very busy I didnt have the time to do so till wednesday morning. I paid 1600 for this protection plan and even told them I dont care to be paid for the labor which would have saved them 700 all I cared about was the parts and they said sorry they couldnt help me. I will never recommend this to anyone and will be sure to write many more negative reviews to let them know just how displeased I am with their so called protection plan.

Review: My warranty calls out for "Master cylinder; wheel cylinders, calipers, ABS hydraulic components, ABS speed sensors, and ABS control module." The part that went bad in my 2005 Lexus SC430 was the brake booster pump, part number 47070-30060 which cost $1500.55 plus $300 installation. This is a sub-assembly of the ABS hydraulic pump system. If the garage had asked to replace the entire ABS system to be replaced,it would have been covered. Because the request was to only replace the bad portion, the brake booster pump, a sub-system, the claim was declined, costing over $1500.I have a diagram of the entire system and the sub-system that had to be replaced from the garage, which I emailed to Cars Protection. They still denied the claim.Desired Settlement: 1. Would like Cars Protection to be held accountable so others are not harmed. 2. Would like to have the claim covered.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 7, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on April 17, 2013. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 17, 2013 (See attached Service Contract).

On March 26, 2014 at 9:27 a.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing brake booster pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On March 26, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., we advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the brake booster pump claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. CARS advised the repair facility that the brake booster pump is not part of the master cylinder or the Anti-Lock Brake System.

On March 26, 2014 at 1:31 p.m., we advised the customer's friend that the brake booster pump is not listed as a covered component under her service contract. On March 27, 2014 at 4:53 p.m., we went over the service contract coverage with the customer and explained that listed components on the service contract are covered under the service contract. We again advised that the brake booster pump is not listed as a covered component on her service contract.

By the customer's signature on her Ultimate Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of her service contract. It is stated in the customer's service contract: “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE

COMPONENTS." and under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the brake booster pump is not listed as a covered component on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of this part.

The brake booster pump and the master cylinder are two (2) separate components and can be repaired/replaced independently of each other. In addition, the brake booster pump is not part of the Anti-Lock Brake System and can be repaired/replaced independently of the Anti-Lock Brake System. The brake booster pump is not listed under the covered components on customer’s service contract.

Review: While I know this warranty product does not cover everything after reading it, I feel they made an error in not covering items when the mechanic called them. He called in reference to a valve cover leaking oil, a radiator leaking and an oil pan leaking. I knew the radiator wasn't covered, but the operator at CARS Protection said no oil leaks are covered. I paid out of pocket for all repairs.When I got home I re-checked the warranty & valve covers and oil pans ARE covered. The "leaking oil" loophole is bogus, especially for oil pans. All oil pans do is hold oil! Nothing else is going to leak out of it!I'm out $573.10 in non-covered "covered" items.Plus, this company needs to tell their sales people (used car dealers) that they need to stop saying this warranty covers everything. The one from whom I purchased this said as such & after reading before signing I saw the minimal coverage (so I only bought a 30 day warranty). I know the used car dealers get commission from selling these warranties, but they need to be told to stop overselling what the warranty says.Desired Settlement: I would like reimbursement of the $573.10 I paid out-of-pocket for items listed as "Covered" in their warranty.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 3, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased her 2002 Kia Sportage on October 6, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Independence Service Contract (Month to Month Recurring Debit) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 7, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

On October 30, 2014 at 4:28 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS' customer service department and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing a radiator leak, and a valve cover gasket issue. We advised that these components were non-covered components under the customer's service contract. The repair facility then put the customer on the telephone with CARS. We then went over the customer's service coverage with her.

The above stated telephone call was the only communication CARS received regarding the customer’s mechanical issues. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer's service contract.

By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the repair facility advised a CARS customer service representative of the following mechanical issues with the customer's vehicle: radiator leak and a valve cover gasket issue. These components are not listed as covered components on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of these components even if a claim would be properly opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

The customer’s service contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component. Additionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks. Oil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph 1 (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Although our records do not show that the oil pan issues were discussed by the repair facility, leaks, specifically oil leaks are not covered under the customer's service contract.

Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components. The service contract 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.

Review: I purchased a 4 year warranty along with a used car in 2012. Since then I have sold the car and bought a another used car with the understanding that I would not be able to transfer the warranty. When I bought the warranty in 2012 I was told that if I sold the car, I would be able to call Cars Protection Plus and get a refund for the remaining amount of the warranty that I already paid for (2 years left on the warranty). I had previously done this on a used Nissan at the Nissan dealer.I called Cars Protection Plus to get the refund and was told that they do not do refunds. So in summary; I bought a used car and 4 year warranty in 2012, sold the car in 2014, and because Cars Protection Plus will not refund my money and the warranty cannot be transferred, I have 2 years on an auto warranty and no car to use it on.Desired Settlement: The warranty is paid in full and I cannot use the warranty for anything. A supplementary warranty company should not be able to tell me when I can or cannot sell my car. I would like my refund on the remaining balance of my warranty.

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 11, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner:

On October 20, 2012, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer's service contract was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 24, 2012 (the attached "Service Contract”].

On September 10, 2014 at 2:29 p.m. the customer contacted CARS advising that he sold the vehicle and was now inquiring about a prorated refund for the remainder of his contract. During that telephone call, we advised that customer that pursuant to the terms and conditions and cancellation provisions of his service contract, he was not entitled to any refund.

By the customer's signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The cancellation provisions of the customer's service contract state: "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..."

Please be advised that CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where state statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, CARS is not directed by any Pennsylvania state statute to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of his service contract.

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

Review: I purchased a warrenty and when I filed a claim instead of them paying for the dealership to replace the part with an approved OEM part they sent a part that was from a non recommended distributor and instead of paying the $60 dollar an hour labor fee that was in the contract they paid only $80 for a job that takes 3 1/2 hours and there excuse was that the mitchell repair guide says that the job only takes 3 hours and since I have a $100 deductable they subtracted that from there part. I have an Audi A8 there is no certified repair shop that will work on that car for less than $108 an hour labor rate. they left me with a bill of over $400 this company is a rip of! I also had a problem with my head rest moter the contract says that they cover the cost of seat moters although the headrest moter is part of the seat moter they refused to pay for the repair.Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund and an investigation opened up on this so called company that appears to be a scam!

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated July 31, 2013 and I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 19, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 78,882 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 24, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On July 24, 2013, at 9:12 a.m., a claim was called in by [redacted] from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the tire press sensor, MMI mount unit, throttle valve, right and left front 02 sensors and the head rest motor. [redacted] also stated that the vehicle registered 980 miles on the odometer.

During the processing of the claim, we were advised by the customer that the check engine light came on and the vehicle was not accelerating properly. We were advised by [redacted] that the throttle valve was faulty. We advised [redacted] that the throttle valve/body, a non-covered component, needed to be repaired before we could determine if the 02 sensors had failed.

In a goodwill gesture to assist the selling dealer, the President of CARS decided that CARS would replace the 02 sensors in the customer’s vehicle without the throttle valve/body being repaired.

On July 30, 2013 at 9:07 a.m., we advised [redacted] at the repair facility of the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the 02 sensors for $245.74. Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide stated that the repair should take 3.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, the total labor cost was $180.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. After the deductible was applied, the total value of the claim was $325.74. We explained that either we could supply the parts and pay $80.00 towards labor or pay $325.74 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked [redacted] to get back us with the customer's decision. The repair facility advised us that the customer’s would take the cash allowance.

Later that same day, the repair facility called to advise us that the customer would like CARS to supply the parts for the repair of his vehicle. We ordered the parts and they are estimated to arrive at the repair facility on August 1, 2013.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to understood the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” We would like also to point out here that CARS stands behind the parts we ship to the repair facilities. CARS will provide a 12 month parts and labor warranty on the 02 sensors; however, if there are other issues that cause the 02 sensors to fail within the 12 month period, the parts and labor warranty will be revoked. It is up to the repair facility to find the proper cause of failure to said components. We would like to point out here that is the customer’s choice to either have the parts shipped to the repair facility or take the money allowance for the claim. If the customer chooses the cash allowance they are able to apply that allowance towards the repair of their choice. In this case the customer chose to have the 02 shipped to the repair facility.

Please also be advised that it clearly states on the customer’s 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.” The customer had the option to purchase a more comprehensive contract with higher labor rates when he purchased the service contract; however, he chose the attached service contract with a maximum labor rate of fifty ($60.00) per hour. Additionally, when the claim was called in by [redacted] at the repair facility, he advised us that the repair facility’s labor rate was $124.50 dollars per hour. To reiterate, this is the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle.

Furthermore, when the July 24, 2013 claim was opened, the repair facility mentioned issues with the head rest motor; however, the repair facility did not bring it to our attention again. On August 1, 2013 at 1:08 p.m., after the receipt of your letter, we left a message for [redacted] advising him to contact us for authorization to repair the head rest motor.

Furthermore, 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 service contract holder what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible

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

Review: I purchased a limited warranty from CARS for an 2006 Audi that I purchased. It states that my transmission is covered under warranty, when my transmission went bad, I took my car to Audi to have the transmission fixed, CARS called and let me know that I needed to take my car elsewhere so that a teardown and diagnostics be done to determine what caused the transmission to go bad. I asked where did they suggest for me to take the car? They suggested that I take the car to [redacted] , which I did. I was then told that the teardown and diagnostics was to be paid by me. which was $607. After paying that, they did order the transmission for my car. I was called again by [redacted] to let me know that my bill was now $1078. The total bill was 3300. I ended up paying more than the warranty company. My car has been in the repair shop for almost two weeks When I asked about a rental car, they said they only pay foo 8.8hrs which is the time it should take to repair a transmission, however the transmission had to be ordered, which takes a day or so, they only wanted to give me 25.00 for a rental ( the warranty has a $300.00 limit. I believe that they are using deceptive practices against the warrantors. If I didn't have the $607 dollars for teardown, I would not have been able to use the warranty. they bank on people not having the money for the teardown and diagnostics so that they don't have to cover the warrantied parts. Also I found a case [redacted] vs CARS protection Plus. as a part of its judgment the trail court ordered a permanent injunction against CARS Protection Plus stating that they are prohibited from imposing teardown and diagnostic testing costs on its warranty holders for the mere purpose of determining why a covered part was damaged or failed, now that case was in [redacted] not sure if that will hold up is ** , but I still believe they should not be using these type of practices on their warranty holders . They also didn't pay the sales tax on the covered part, which cost me about $200.00Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded for the teardown expenses as well as rental car fees that I had to pay while they order my covered part.

Business

Response:

February 4, 2016VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 AUDI A6 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated February 1, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On September 18, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 19, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).On January 4, 2016 at 1:24 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer's son advising that the customer’s vehicle was transmission issues. CARS reviewed transmission coverage and claim procedures pursuant to the customer's Service Contract.First Claim: On January 11, 2016 at 1:46 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On January 11, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., CARS contacted the repair facility to inquire if they performed internal transmission work. The repair facility advised that they only performed removal and replacement of transmissions. CARS then advised the repair facility that the customer would have to move her vehicle to another repair facility capable to perform tear-down to the point of component failure.On January 11, 2016 at 2:50 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the repair facility that her vehicle was at for the transmission issues with her vehicle does not perform internal transmission work. CARS further advised that the repair facility's labor rate was $115.95 per hour and her Service Contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. We advised that she would have to move her vehicle to a repair facility that is capable of performing internal transmission work. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On January 18, 2016 at 2:28 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On January 18, 2016 at 3:15 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on January 15, 2016. The repair facility advised that there were no leaks and the fluid was full and varnished. The repair facility further advised that check engine light was displayed along with seven (7) codes and none were transmission codes. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.On January 19, 2016 at 3:43 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to ask what was covered under her Service Contract. CARS advised that her Service Contract covers internally lubricated parts within the transmission housing. CARS advised that without teardown to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage, CARS would be unable to move forward with her transmission claim.On January 25, 2016 at 10:46 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was that the clutch drum broke causing metal in the fluid.On January 26, 2016 at 9:31 a.m., after CARS had the opportunity to check on the availability of parts, we then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply a transmission for $1,000.00. We could also authorize $75.00 towards fluid for the repair. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 8.8 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $528.00. 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 $1,503.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $428.00 towards labor and $75.00 towards fluids for the repair or pay $1,503.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.On January 26, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of her choice. CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle.On February 2, 2016 at 2:26 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to question the amount she paid for the repair of her vehicle. CARS advised that we were informed by the repair facility she would take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of choice. We advised that she had the option of having CARS supply a transmission to the repair facility for her vehicle. The customer advised that the repair facility never gave her that option. CARS advised that she would have to speak to her repair facility about not presenting her with that option.CARS will pay the repair facility in the amount of $1,503.00 via credit card upon receipt of a proper invoice.By the customer's signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part 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 customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of componentfailure, 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. CARS is not responsible for any tear-down time.The Service Contract states under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair will 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." During the claim intake calls on January 18, 2016 the repair facility advised CARS that the cost of labor was $95.00 per hour. Upon receipt of a properly submitted invoice to CARS from the repair facility, CARS will pay for 8.8 hours of labor at $60.00 per hour for the January 18, 2016 transmission claim. As stated above, the time allowed for repairs is based on Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide. The customer is responsible for any amount of time over the allowed amount. CARS is not responsible for any tear-down time.The customer's Service Contract states: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service ContractHolder 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 with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless ofreason, is not included." Here, as stated above the time to repair/replace the covered components was 8.8 hours. Therefore, CARS will pay the customer $25.00 toward the rental costs incurred during the repair of her vehicle.It is also states at Paragraph 1 (s): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Taxes and repair facility charges." Here, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, she is responsible for any taxes incurred with the repair of her vehicle. 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 the customer's financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the customer's Service Contract. The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through September 19, 2016. Should her vehicle 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 her Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: Purchased a used [redacted] from dealership, added the Ultimate Value Extended warranty. 8 months later my rear drive train went out. Called CARS, they had me take it to a mechanic. Mechanic started the process, year make model, etc... then they got to odometer. Well my display in the vehicle went out, not the odometer the display. They voided the entire contract ($1800.00) for a breach in contract. I asked Frank to show me where in the contract it states this and they could not tell me. See my contract does read if the odometer is in operable the contract is void, but my odometer is in working order. These people knew my repairs would be $2500.00, they just dumped it on me. The company is set up to take advantage of people. They may have an A+ on Revdex.com, but I guarantee you this is because they have people on staff that merely solve these issues. What CARS protection plus doesnt realize is that my Godfather is a nationally renown attorney. See when he gets a hold of this CARS will change its tune real quick. My advice, if they mess with you contact me my name is [redacted] ME. I want to help you beat these crooks. They are using insurance to scam people, they dance around their laws and firmly try to push you into giving up. DO NOT GIVE UP, they will honor your claim if you push.Desired Settlement: Refund me the estimated amount.

Business

Response:

I received your letter of April 15, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 10, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 13, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). On April 14, 2015 at 10:29 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle, advising that there were rear drive shaft and fuel tank issues. During the initial processing of the claim the repair facility advised in a recorded telephone call: "Not able to pull his mileage, because his odometer does not work...Was not able to access scanner but couldn't pull up ...instrument cluster lights up, but as far as readouts, none of stuff lights up.” Based upon the information provided by the repair facility, and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customers' Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the customer's claim. The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of his Ultimate Plus Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states: "TERMS AND CONDITIONS at 2.(e). PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: An inoperative odometer, and/or odometer display, shall void the Service Contract without refund.” Here as stated above, the repair facility advised us in a recorded call that the customer’s odometer was not working and no mileage could be displayed; therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer any assistance with the mechanical claim and also cancel the customer’s service contract. CARS relies on the information provided by our repair facilities, since we are unable to inspect each and every vehicle that has an open mechanical claim.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,[redacted]General Counsel

Review: I purchased a 1999 BMW 740 from a used car dealership with 120K miles on it. Because of how old the car was I decided that it was a good idea to get a warranty, just in case anything went wrong. Once the car was in my possession I at first had no issues, however after 2 weeks of driving to work and back I encountered an issue one morning. I got in to go to work and the car began shacking and making weird noises. Since I know nothing about cars, I called a mechanic who informed me that the car needed to be towed to the auto shop to determine what was causing the issue. After the car was towed I called the warranty company about the issue. They informed me that the diagnostic costs would have to be out of pocket, which ended up costing me about $1,000. After the diagnostic was complete, it was determined that it was an internal engine issue. The mechanic then reached out to the warranty company informing them of the issue. The warranty company then sent out an adjuster to come and see the vehicle. The adjuster that was sent out knew very little about cars ( from what my mechanic told me) He tried starting the car with the engine being apart which caused it to break even more. At this point, they are telling me that they do not cover the original issue, which according to their policy they do, and are denying the claim that their adjuster did any harm to the vehicle. There were several individuals on site that seen the adjuster start the car with a engine that was taken apart with no fluids in it, however they are still denying it. The warranty company does not want to pay for the original issue or the other issue they caused and as of now I have a car that I have no use of since it is still at the shop 3 weeks later with a broken engine, thanks to their adjuster.Desired Settlement: I bought the warranty just in case something would happen and something did. When I bought the warranty I was informed that X,Y and Z would be covered however once something happened the warranty company did not want to deal with it. Not only did they not fix the original problem, but their adjuster broke it even more and is now denying it. I want the warranty company to do as they promised and fix my vehicle.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 9, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on August 30, 2014 and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 120,566 miles on the odometer. On that same date, she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was received with payment and approved by CARS on September 5, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

On September 17, 2014 at 11:25 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle advising of engine issues. The repair facility also stated that the vehicle currently registered 120,720 miles on the odometer, which means that 154 miles were driven on the vehicle since the date of purchase. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised them to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure and provide CARS with its cause of failure and extent of damage, so that we could determine if the failed components would be covered under the customer's vehicle.

On September 26, 2014 at 2:46 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the #1 exhaust valve was burnt. When asked what caused the valve to burn; however, the repair facility could not verify. We then explained to the repair facility to get the customer's permission to send out cylinder head to verify extent of damage and call us back with results. During that telephone call, we explained to the repair facility that an independent inspection of the customer’s vehicle may be necessary to verify their findings.

On October 2, 2014 at 3:43 p.m., we received a telephone call from repair facility advising that the vehicle needed new valves as they were worn, cracked and one (1) was chipped. The repair facility also stated that there was carbon buildup, but was not sure whether the carbon was the cause of failure. As a result, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the vehicle was necessary to verify that carbon build up, as found by the repair facility, was the exact cause of failure and also determine the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.

The independent inspection occurred on October 7, 2014. The independent inspection found that one of the exhaust valves for the #1 cylinder had a piece of it burned away. There was

evidence of carbon accumulation on the valve seat. There were no other burned valves evident and

no signs of piston or cylinder wall damage. The head gasket was intact. There were no signs of recent repairs or new parts installed on the engine. The independent inspector found that the failure to the engine was due to the burning of the #1 cylinder exhaust valve due to improper valve seating from carbon accumulation over time and miles and continued operation, which failure was in progress prior to 154 miles.

At this time I would like to address the customer’s concerns regarding the competence of the independent inspector. For many years, CARS has been using a well-known, experienced and quality nationwide inspection company to perform independent inspections. Their inspectors are well trained with extensive mechanical expertise and service contract administrative backgrounds.

During the inspection of the customer’s vehicle, the inspector only turned the key in the ignition to illuminate the dashboard to obtain the accurate mileage on the vehicle and to determine if any warning lights were illuminated, as well. This procedure occurs in all inspections so that pertinent information can be obtained.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on her Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. The service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph l(p): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure caused by carbon,

sludge, water ingestion or combustion leaks.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer found that carbon build up was the cause of failure and the independent inspector verified these failures. Therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer any assistance with the repair to the customer's vehicle pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

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

Review: I purchased a used car in June 2010. At that time I was offered the opportunity to purchase an extended 4 year warranty for $1500. I paid cash for the car and the warranty on that day. The warranty I purchased covers the engine and transmission. Every since I purchased that car and the warranty, my car has not been a reliable car. It has had over 6 different engines and has been in a mechanic shop. The car has been broken down longer than it has been driven.I have put more money into this car and I havent even driven the car much because of its problems. Recently, C.A.R.S Protection Plus sent my mechanic an engine to be installed in my car. The engine was a faulty leaky engine that smoked and leaked, and the check engine light stayed on. Now Im left with a car that is still in the shop and my mechanic cannot move forward because the warranty guys wants me (the customer) to pay over $1500 for the break down of the engine.All I know is that I have stage 3 breast cancer and I just recently went through 2 lumpectomies and now a mastectomy.I doing chemo treatments and Im not able to get back and forth to any doctor appointments because I have no car or no one on my side to protect me, (the consumer) I have spent well over $20,000 on this car and I have only driven it a total of 6 months out of 4 years. The rest of the time its been either broken down down on the side of the road or somewhere in a shop collecting dust. I have lost 2 jobs and losts of money trying to keep this car running. Now it looks like Im gonna lose my battle with cancer because of the stress and worry about getting to my treatments and not having a reliable car and warranty which I thought I paid for.Desired Settlement: Since I am in a dyer situation, I would like to either get a refund of my $1500 I paid for the warranty or I would like to get a replacement engine that is not faulty to be put in my car. I just want to be able to get to my treatments without breaking down on the side of the road. And for once, I would like to have a reliable car to get me there.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 20, 2013, 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 June 11, 2010 and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 118,810 miles on the odometer. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on June 14, 2010 (See attached Service Contract). According to our records, the customer’s vehicle has been driven 65,385 miles.

Please be advised that since the inception of the customer’s service contract, twelve (12) claims were opened by repair facilities on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Of those twelve (12) claims, CARS authorized, seven (7) claims for payment by CARS; however, three (3) of those authorized claims were not paid because the repair facilities chosen by the customer failed to provide CARS with the final invoice evidencing that the repairs were completed. One (1) of the claims authorized but not paid was for an engine repair; however, CARS has no evidence that an engine was replaced in the customer’s vehicle at that time because we never received the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs were completed. After 180 days, the claims were closed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, which clearly states that authorization numbers are valid for only 180 days.

The other claims not authorized by CARS were for non-covered components, not listed for coverage under the customer’s service contract; therefore, those repairs were the sole responsibility of the customer. To date, CARS has paid the total of $2,691.68 in claims towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle over the last 31/2 years.

When the November 12, 2013 claim was called in, the repair facility advised that the customer’s vehicle registered 184,195 miles on the odometer and that there were issues with the engine. Our claims procedures were clearly reviewed with the repair facility, which required proper teardown to the point of component failure to determine the exact cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle. Our records also reveal that since the previous April 5, 2013 claim was opened, authorized and paid for by CARS, the vehicle was driven an additional 8,246 miles.

The customer states in her complaint that the repair facility she chose to repair her vehicle is charging her over $1,500.00 for the teardown. If the customer is unable to pay this amount for teardown, she should move her vehicle to another repair facility which is more affordable.

The customer also states in her complaint that she rarely drove the vehicle; however, as you can see from the above information, there have been 65,385 miles driven on the vehicle since the date of vehicle purchase, which calculates to over 18,000 miles driven per year.

Additionally, as stated above, CARS has paid $2,691.68 in claims towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle. Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS will pay claims up to the vehicle purchase price. Here, the customer paid $3,995.00 for the vehicle. Accordingly, the customer has $1,303.32 available for assistance towards the repair of her vehicle or the expiration of June 14, 2014, whichever occurs first.

I would also like to point out that when the August 8, 2012 claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, CARS determined that an independent inspection was necessary. The independent inspector found that the customer continued to drive the vehicle in an overheat condition, which caused additional damage to the vehicle. In that claim, CARS only authorized for the repair of the radiator and labor time. All repairs caused by the continued operation of the vehicle were the sole responsibility of the customer.

Furthermore, the customer states that she would like a refund of her service contract in the amount of $1,500.00. Please be advised that our service contracts are sold wholesale; therefore, what the customer paid for the service contract is not what CARS received for the service contract. Here, CARS did not receive $1,500.00 for the customer’s service contract and pursuant to the customer’s service contract, since claims have been paid in the amount of $2,691.68 for repair of the customer’s vehicle; the customer is not entitled to any refund.

As you can see from the above information, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of her service contract. Therefore, CARS will continue to open and process claims on behalf of her vehicle until the claims reach the vehicle purchase price or June 14, 2014, whichever occurs. For your convenience I have highlighted all the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract for your review.

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

Consumer

Response:

With their response I'm still left without a car. So I would like to have the remaining money $1303 .00 to apply it towards another car. All I'm trying to do is to have reliable transportation for once. Since I bought that car and warranty nothing reliable has come out of it. I would like to be able to go to my cancer treatments without my car breaking down and being in the shop all the time.

Review: Review: CARS Protection Plus will not issue a pro-rated refund of my 24-month service warranty upon the sale of the covered vehicle just a few months after purchase. I feel discriminated against because the companys policy (Cancellation Provision) does not allow a person who paid in full (rather than financing the warranty cost) to receive any refund whatsoever. The Cancellation Provision also does not provide for a consumer who lawfully sells/trades in a vehicle versus a vehicle that is a total loss or repossessed. This refund policy is unfair and not explicitly written.Action: Between June 12-14, I called CARS Protection Plus to request a pro-rated refund of my contract. [redacted] in customer service said: PA residents arent entitled to a refund. Only people who have financed a contract; then only will the lien holder get the money back. Also, if a persons vehicle is declared totaled. I said: I paid for the full contract amount and didnt finance it. She said: Sir, that is our policy. I told her I wanted to speak to a manager and she transferred me into [redacted] voice mail. I did not leave a message at that time. I waited a few hours, called CARS again, and spoke with another customer service rep. I told her the same thing written above. She said: Sir, we cant refund your money because our policy states that. I said: What type of rules state you dont refund a persons money for service/goods/commodities for whatever reason? She said: The law of PA states this. I replied: Are you telling me that you are following the State of PAs refund policy rules? She said: Yes. I said: that doesnt sound correct and I will call the PA Consumer Bureau. I called the PA Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) and chatted with a woman who said she heard of NO such thing about PA having rules NOT to give back to a consumer the value of their unused services from a contract. The BCP rep told me to fill out a complaint with her office and also to write to the Revdex.com (Revdex.com). I called back CARS Protection Plus for a 3rd time and spoke with yet another customer service rep and asked her to put me through to a manager. I was again forwarded to the voice mail of [redacted]. I do not know [redacted]s last name as the outgoing voice message provides only her first name. I waited for a few hours with NO return call. I then left another voice message for [redacted].Between June 14-16, I also called [redacted], the salesperson at [redacted] who sold me the extended warranty service. He said he had not heard of such a policy where a company would not refund a pro-rated amount for an unused portion of the warranty. [redacted] told me he would call his sales rep who dealt with CARS Protection Plus. I called [redacted] on 7/8/13 to confirm whether he followed through with his sales rep. He said he did and told me that my best alternative course of action was to call the company directly (which I had already done). He wished me luck, as there was nothing more he could do at his level. I thanked him.Finally, [redacted] or I called back, I do not recall which of us it was, and we spoke directly. [redacted] basically said that I had a chance to read the companys policy upon signing the contract and then apologized to me for my NOT being able to receive a pro-rated refund. She also clarified that it was the companys refund rules and NOT a PA rule and that one of the customer svc reps told me the wrong information. I said to [redacted], that isnt fair to me for not being able to receive any monies back at all for services not rendered. I told her of my disappointment for the way they ran the business of not providing refunds just because I paid cash in full instead of financing the cost of the warranty program. I told her I would write a complaint to the PA Attorneys Office (consumer protection) and the Revdex.com. [redacted] said that was my prerogative. She was polite and professional but quiet in her responses to me.Resolution: I would simply like to receive a pro-rated refund of my unused extended service warranty contract for which I paid cash instead of financing. My contract started on March 4, 2013 and I initially called the company around June 15, 2013 to cancel the contract and request a refund of the remaining portion of the contract amount. Thus, I would like to have 21.5 months of my $1298.00 contract price refunded. 1298 / 24 months (full contract length) = $54.08 per month. $54.08 x 2.5 actual months under contract = $135.20 cost. Thus, $1298.00 $135.20 = $1,162.80 refund.Desired Settlement: I just want the unused pro-rated portion of the monies paid toward the contract. Thus, I would like to have 21.5 months of my $1298.00 contract price refunded. 1298 / 24 months (full contract length) = $54.08 per month. $54.08 x 2.5 actual months under contract = $135.20 cost. Thus, $1298.00 $135.20 = $1,162.80 refund.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated July 26, 2013 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 28, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on March 4, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On May 10, 2013, at 12:00 p.m., the customer telephoned us to inquire about selling his vehicle. We advised that a $ 99.00 transfer fee must be paid before the final sale of the vehicle to transfer the service contract to the new owner of the vehicle.

On June 4, 2013 at 9:12 p.m., the customer advised us that his vehicle was slipping in the rear differential. We reviewed his service contract with him and explained that replacement of fluid is considered general maintenance; therefore, the issues with his vehicle were not covered under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On June 12, 2013 the customer telephoned CARS and spoke to several representatives at CARS including the office manager in regard to the cancellation of his service contract with us. Our representatives in the refund department, customer service and the office manager went over the state refund procedures for Pennsylvania and CARS cancellation policies. We advised the customer that CARS is not directed by any state statute in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to return any monies to the customer. We also explained that our cancellation provisions are stated in our service contracts.

By his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states under the 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.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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.

To reiterate, CARS is not directed by any Commonwealth of Pennsylvania statutes to refund any monies for the cancellation of a service contract to a customer. CARS management made the cancellation provisions as a company policy and includes this provision in all of our service contracts. The customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read and agreed to the terms of the service contract.

CARS stands by its original decision that the customer is not entitled to a refund based on the above cancellation provisions.

In addition, please be advised that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers; therefore, CARS only receives a set price for each contract sold and if a customer is eligible for a refund, any remaining refund of the service contract owed to the customer/lienholder is to be paid by the selling dealer. The customer’s service contract lists the service contract purchase price as $1,298.00; however, CARS did not receive that amount from the selling dealer for 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.

Consumer

Response:

Review: On January 5th, I purchased a new-to-me car from a small auto dealership in [redacted], Va. I put a $300 down payment on the vehicle to get the alignment fixed and then the next day went through the buying process. In the midst of signing all the papers at the dealership, we purchased a warranty from this company for the Onyx level of protection for $895. I admit it was my fault for not noticing that the price the dealer put down on the warranty purchase line was $300. After reviewing customer complaints through the Revdex.com website, I decided to ask for a refund before the papers even went through on their end. I spoke with Alesha through e-mail, explained my problem, sent her the documents proving the original price of the vehicle ($6995), the bill of sale I took home the first day proving my $300 deposit, and the final bill of sale I took to the bank with the original price of the vehicle plus the warranty ($7900).

After the e-mail exchange, I was contacted today saying that they would not refund my total purchase price, only what was listed on the papers, so essentially, I have been screwed out of $500.Desired Settlement: I just want my full $895 back.

Business

Response:

[redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania[redacted] RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2010 DODGE JOURNEYVIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 15, 2016 and January 20, 2016 enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaints and respond as follows: On January 21, 2016 CARS telephoned the customer to explain the processing and the amount of her refund. CARS now considers this matter resolved.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason P. M[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.

Review: When my vehicle needed replacement parts to the engine, C.A.R.S. Protection Plus offered to replace these parts with used pieces. Although an authorized used parts clause is included in the warranty, no mechanic (that I know) will replace such critical engine parts with used pieces. Additionally, C.A.R.S. Protection Plus attempted to state that the most expensive part was not covered, when it was clearly listed in the contract as a covered part. The customer service director showed no sympathy, was unable to fully explain how they authorized a used piece, and did not offer any type of support (outside of repeating the terms of the contract). The total cost to repair my vehicle was just shy of $600. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus offered a total of $163.00 for this repair, using used parts. This is a complete and utter rip off in my opinion, and they are saved by the "authorized used parts" clause in the contract. In my experience, they are ALWAYS going to find used parts to repair the car rather than providing new parts for the repair. And since no professional mechanic will likely replace engine pieces with used parts (or other critical parts of a vehicle), C.A.R.S. Protection Plus ends up not paying for much of anything. It may be in the contract, but "Authorized Used Parts" is misleading since they cannot or do not explain how this is determined and since they will just find used parts to repair a vehicle. I think that it is unethical, and a complete rip off to customers.Desired Settlement: I do not believe that I will be able to receive a comparable refund for what I had to pay for since C.A.R.S. Protection Plus is protected by their very misleading authorized used parts clause within the contract. But I do think it is necessary to report this company's unethical operations and unprofessional customer service.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 9, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On December 20, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 2, 2014 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On May 21, 2014 at 1:04 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing issues with the intake gasket and coil pack. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Later that same day we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the intake manifold gasket for $90.00, the intake set for $7.00, and ignition coils for $24.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take .7 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $42.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $163.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the parts as stated above; however, no labor was allotted due to the deductible or we would pay $63.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On May 22, 2014 at 1:04 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer would take the cash allowance. CARS gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin work on the customer’s vehicle. On May 27, 2014, after receiving the final invoice for the repairs, CARS paid the repair facility $63.00 via credit card pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On June 9, 2014 at 8:55 a.m., our customer service department received an email from the customer requesting information on the May 21, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. On June 9, 2014 at 8:55 a.m., the customer service manager left a message for the customer with CARS’ phone number, the customer service manager’s extension, and CARS’ hours for the customer to reach CARS with his concerns. Later that day the customer telephoned CARS and our customer service manager reviewed the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract with him. The options for CARS’ assistance with the May 21, 2014 claim were also reviewed.

By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus 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 parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer’s choice to take the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. In this case, the customer chose to take the money allowance for the repair. It is clearly stated in the service contract that the coverage purchased was for a “used” part. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

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.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any further assistance with the May 21, 2014 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.

Please be advised that the customer’s vehicle has service coverage through January 2, 2016. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statements about our company being unethical and a rip off to customers. Please be advised that CARS processes hundreds of claims each day and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer’s mechanical claims. CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 165 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved” by the Revdex.com, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition, our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in thirty-one (31) states and at any given time our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force.

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

Consumer

Response:

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

My husband purchased a used Ford Expedition from a small car lot that offered him a warranty with CARS Protection Plus. He purchased the warranty and 3 weeks later his check engine light came on. So he called them and they told him to take it to the mechanic and call them back once they find out what was wrong with the truck. He went to 4 different shops and they all said the same thing. CARS PROTECTION DOESNT PAY!!!! No shop in our area would have anything to do with them. Why are you selling warranties and not paying the mechanics??? Also, they give you a due date for your monthly payment but takes the payment 7 days before the due date. That's crazy!!! So they are making sure that they received their money but are not paying other people. Total rip off and a waste of money.

This company is a fraud, they've given me 100 different excuses for not paying for my claim. I did not finance my warrantu, i've paid out of my pocket and when my car broke 4 months ago they've done everything on their power so they don't have to pay for the repair. Their costumer service is horrible and the reps. Are a joke. Whole bunch of liars taking money from hard working people that have to break our backs to pay for a use car that now is broken and I still have to pay for it. This country is the way it is because of companies like this one that promise poor people good service and then turn aroun and steal their money without any compassion. Rich people don't have to deal with companies like this one, only us the people that work extra hard for our money. They are more criminals than bark robbers, they steal from poor people.

NEVER USE THEM!!!! This is a scam, they take your money and run. This business is a joke.

Review: I bought The car warranty an Took my car in for servic, the technician diagnosed the car an it needed a lot of work. When I placed a claim with Cars Protection Plus they said they will cover what was needed, come to find out it was only $60 that they where going to cover/ repair and anything extra has to come out of my pocket. I had the warranty plan since February of 2015 an I cancelled in October they are trying to refund me less that half of the full amount of money I paid, when I never made an actual claim that they have paid for.Desired Settlement: Please give me back my full refund.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 BMW 5451 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 15, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On December 10, 2015, CARS mailed check no. 228006 in the amount of $661.71 to the customer's lienholder with the attached letter. We also sent a letter (attached) to the selling dealer advising him of the amount and his responsibility to issue a check for of his portion of the refund to the lienholder. On January 21, 2016, CARS was advised by the selling dealer that he and the customer had agreed that the selling dealer would issue a refund in the amount of $[redacted]. On January 22, 2016, CARS issued check no. [redacted] in the amount of $[redacted] to ensure that the customer's Service Contract was properly refunded pursuant to [redacted] statute. 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. CARS is directed by state statute in Texas to issue a prorated refund to the customer for the cancellation of his Service Contract. Therefore, pursuant to his Service Contract the customer is entitled to a prorated 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%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted]General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

Review: Purchased a warranty from this company. Broke down on a Saturday night in Slidell, LA, had car towed to a [redacted] that was open on Sunday. Warranty company was not open to obtain approval code, all was covered on policy, got car repaired and paid for myself. Called warranty company to get reimbursed and because we did not get approval before work was done, they will not reimburse. Again, repairs are covered, and listed on the warranty policy.Desired Settlement: I want to be reimbursed for the repairs that I paid for that are covered under my warranty policy.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 4, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On April 4, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 125,501 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on April 9, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”). On May 9, 2013, the customer upgraded the service contract to a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles).

On July 19, 2013 at 9:04 a.m., we received a telephone call from [redacted] at the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the timing chain and tensioner. [redacted] also stated that the vehicle currently registered 131,334 miles on the odometer. We went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 22, 2013 at 11:04 a.m., [redacted] advised that the guides had failed. The claim was processed, our instructions for claim procedures were followed by the repair facility and on July 24, 2013, CARS paid the repair facility $320.00 via credit card pursuant to the terms and conditions the customer’s service contract.

On October 4, 2013, at 1:17 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising that the customer’s vehicle had experienced mechanical problems, specifically the front left axle, hub and left front wheel bearing and that the customer had the vehicle repaired without prior authorization. A customer service representative advised the customer CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle because the repair was completed without prior authorization from CARS. The customer then requested to speak to a manager. Our customer service manager also reviewed the service contract with the customer and explained several times that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract repairs must be authorized by CARS prior to the repair being performed.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s original Service Contract the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s Value Limited Service Contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(c): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: “Any repair done without prior authorization from C.A.R.S.” In his consumer complaint the customer clearly stated “we did not get approval before work was done.” By his own admission, the customer clearly did not follow CARS claim procedure for opening a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his contract.

We would like to point out here that it is clearly stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(b): “SERVICE CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must call C.A.R.S. at ###-###-#### to open a claim.” The repair facility never called CARS to open a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

In addition, it is clearly stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(e and g): “SERVICE CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S. with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun. If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S., an authorization number will be issued for the repair. The authorization number is valid for 180 days from the date issued. After 180 days the authorization number and claim are void. No invoice will be processed without a valid authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information.”

The customer and the repair facility clearly did not follow the afore-mentioned claim procedures. By requiring repairs to be authorized before being made, we are able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. We were not afforded this opportunity when the customer’s vehicle was repaired prior to receiving authorization from CARS for the repairs.

We would also like to point out that C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. offers limited vehicle service contract coverage. 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 service contract holder what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible, as well as claim procedures that MUST be followed.

In addition, CARS paid the July 19, 2013 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle; therefore, the customer was fully aware of CARS claim procedures.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract and therefore we are unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

Therefore, please be further advised that the customer has service contract coverage through its expiration of April 9, 2015. The customer must follow the claims procedures outlined above and also contained on the customer's service contract. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s Power Value Limited Service Contract.

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

Review: I had a failed transmission and notified the C.A.R.S. Warranty via an authorized repair facility, but the answer was silly: You have to pay to tear down the transmission and then we send an inspector to look at it and decide if we caver it. Repair facility clearly tells them that the transmission is bad and gears are not shifting properly and the car becomes immobile, and there is no need to tear down the transmission since it is not repairable and it needs to be replaced. C.A.R.S. quickly dismissed the case and told the repair facility and me that it is not covered. Some transmissions are repairable some are not...this specific [redacted] transmission is not repairable or rebuild-able so it needs to be replaced. This is why people purchase a warranty... and this is why warranty companies are in business... if they refuse to cover a bad transmissions replacement cost for cars with un-repairable transmissions, they should not sell contracts to the owners of those cars...Repair facility gives me a bill of $2325 for a new transmission and $900 labor, and I am left alone to cover this cost although I purchased their warranty the day I purchased the car from the dealer. C.A.R.S Protection Plus is not honoring the contract.I contacted a few dealers and repair facilities and all of them confirmed that the specific [redacted] model I have has a transmission that once it has a problem it has to be replaced...it cannot be repaired. Therefore, it is unprofessional to ask to tear down a transmission that cannot be repaired.Desired Settlement: I want them to honor the contract terms and cover the expenses of my repair... at least up to a reasonable percentage.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 29, 2013, letter, enclosing the consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On October 13, 2012, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle from[redacted], Inc., and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 149,350 miles on the odometer. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). On October 15, 2012, CARS accepted with payment and approved the customer’s service contract (the attached “Service Contract”).

On August 12, 2013, at 2:56 p.m., a claim was called in by [redacted] from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the transmission. [redacted] advised us at 3:42 p.m., that the vehicle was not at his repair facility, that the customer took it. [redacted] also stated that he had to order the transmission fluid, but it wouldn’t be in until either Wednesday or Thursday of that week. We then asked [redacted] if his repair facility was capable of performing teardown, diagnosis and repair of transmissions. [redacted] replied “no.” Therefore, we explained to [redacted] that the customer would have to take his vehicle to a repair facility capable of performing teardown, diagnosis and transmission repairs and have the new repair facility open a new claim.

This was the last communication we had we any repair facility regarding the mechanical issues with the customer’s vehicle until we received a telephone call from the customer on August 28, 2013 at 1:18 p.m. We thoroughly explained to the customer that the original repair facility he chose to repair his vehicle was unable to perform the required teardown, diagnosis and necessary transmission repairs; therefore we informed the customer that he would need to take the vehicle to a repair facility capable of the aforementioned requirements. The customer then stated that he did not want to do that. Our customer service representative then went over our claim procedures with the customer. The customer then stated started threatening our customer service representative.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. The terms and conditions of the service contract clearly state: “WARRANTY CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility within the continental United States, in order for a claim to be opened, and the vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete. The repair facility must call C.A.R.S. AT ###-###-#### TO OPEN A CLAIM. At the discretion of C.A.R.S., 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 relation to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.”

By properly following the claim procedures, CARS would have been able to determine if the failed component was covered under the customer’s service contract; and if covered, it would have allowed CARS to calculate the amount of money we could have authorized for the claim. Here, the customer refused to follow the claim procedures required by all CARS customers; therefore, we could not move forward with the claim or offer any assistance with the claim.

Furthermore, 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 service contract holder what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

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

Very truly yours,

Consumer

Response:

C.A.R.S response is really a funny one as it seems like if they write the time and date of the phones and the name of the mechanic they look professional. Well, it does not. This company is determined NOT TO pay for your claim.

Here is the truth: When the [redacted] Service owned by Mr. [redacted] contacted them, they told him to tear down the car to the point they will see the problem of the transmission, and I am as the owner of the car responsible to cover the cost of this tear down, [redacted] tells them "no" he does not tell them his place is not capable of tear down... he is a [redacted] certify mechanic and he is capable of it. But he rejects to tear it down since the problem with this specific transmission has nothing to do with tear down... those transmissions cannot be repaired... [redacted] told me that tear down will cost me significantly, and will make my car disabled and a he added he has experience with this company C.A.R.S. and they play this game have it torn down then reject and do not pay at the end and it costs the owner much more...

[redacted] simply told me that C.A.R.S will not pay anything and I should not waste my time dealing with this company and he suggested to change the transmission oil to see if there will be any improvement. That is the reason I got my car, and returned after he obtained the transmission oil.

He changed the oil, and there was no improvement in the performance... and I asked him again if there is anything we can do... he said that he talked to C.A.R.S. and they rejected to cover anything... [redacted] is right there and his number is ###-###-####. The truth is one phone call away...

Here is the simple question C.A.R.S. should answer: If the dealership says that there is no way to fix those transmissions once they slip, they have to be replaced, ... why ask a tear-down... just drive the car and see it has a transmission failure...

C.A..R.S is there to play this game of bait and switch.. this is what I told the customer service rep.. this is not "threatening".. . She told me that it is written on the contract that the customer must pay for the cost tear down of the transmission (so silly!) Then I told her "so this is the game you are playing.. great, then I will disclose your unprofessional-ism , and you will lose more money... "

What the company does not understand is that I really don't care if they pay for my claim or not... I will take pleasure to show this company's real face to customers... This is more important to me...

Regards,

Review: I purchased a car with a warranty from CARS PROTECTION PLUS and they are unwilling to back it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Desired Settlement: To honor their warranty and take care of the problem and fix the car.

Business

Response:

Patricia Cook Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 November 16, 2105 RE: COMPLAINT ID #10951656 2003 AUDIA6 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated November 16, 2015 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on October 28, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that date the vehicle registered 108,956 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on November 4, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). On November 9, 2015, at 11:10 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim on November 9, 2015 at 1:02 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the customer advised CARS that his vehicle began to experience engine issues on November 1, 2015. On November 9, 2015 at 2:11 p.m., CARS contacted the repair facility and advised that since the failures were present prior to CARS acceptance of the customer's Service Contract on November 4, 2015, CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs. 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 above the customer's signature, it states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase." Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS.") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. CARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase." As stated previously, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on November 9, 2015 that his vehicle experienced engine problems November 1, 2015 which was prior to CARS acceptance of his Service Contract on November 4. 2015. When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer's vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the November 9, 2015 engine claim because the engine issues were present prior to CARS’ acceptance with payment of the customer's Service Contract. For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and we are not able to assist with the November 9, 2015 engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect after they are received with payment, processed and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., which may be different than the date of vehicle purchase. The customer's Service Contract was processed and approved on November 4, 2015. The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through February 4, 2016 or when the odometer on his vehicle registers 113,456 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: This is my story: I bought a 2009 mitsubishi lancer ralliart on July 18, 2014 for $12,700 from [redacted] which is 2 hours from where I live. The day after I purchased the car the transmission was acting up so I contacted a mitsubishi service shop to see if they'd look at it because I knew it wasnt good to drive. They couldn't get it in until july 26, 2014. after looking at the car they realized the wrong transmission fluid was put in. They notified me an said with the wrong fluid it can cause internal damage to the transmission. They suggested I try getting it flushed an put in the proper fluid right away because its not good to run the car like that an it would cost $557.40. I contacted the dealer I bought the car from an he said to contact my warranty (which is car protection plus) I did, an told them my problem that Ive been having since I bought the car. they told me they don't cover fluid services. At this point I had to pay out of pocket for the services because my car was sitting at the shop. after days back an forth with the dealer he agreed to pay me back $325 for just the fluid because it was still with in his 30 days by law. after a few weeks of driving the car with the new fluid, it was still acting up an getting worse as the days went on. I again contacted the dealer an he said my warranty will cover it because its past his 30 days. I brought it to the same service shop so they could put a claim in to car protection plus for a new tranny. Car protection then denied it saying that they won't cover it because it's been a problem with the car from the beginning. This isnt right! I tried to fix the problem an it was to late, the transmission was to far gone an now I have a car that doesnt drive. a warranty is suppose to help their customers with car problems. They should be coveqlring This after the dealers 30 days are up an they're not!! What's the point of a warranty then. Seems to me theyre just makin an excuse cuz they don't wanna pay for a new tranny!Desired Settlement: I want car protection plus to pay for a new transmission for my car. theyre my warranty company an they should be protecting me an they're not! Why should I be out of a car when I had nothing to do with the transmission being bad. They should be covering it!

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 26, 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 lulv 18. 2014. On that same date he applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles) which was received by CARS and approved with payment on lulv 24. 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On August 19, 2014 at 9:05 a.m., in a recorded telephone call with a CARS customer service representative, the customer stated that his vehicle was shuddering when leaving the dealership on the date of purchase of July 18, 2014. The customer then stated that he took it to a Mitsubishi dealer and they told him that the wrong transmission fluid was in in the vehicle; therefore, they replaced the transmission fluid and filter. The customer also stated that the transmission issues improved; however the transmission still occasionally hesitated. The customer further stated that he submitted the invoice to the selling dealer to forward to CARS for reimbursement. During that telephone call we advised the customer that fluids and filters are maintenance item and are not covered under any of CARS service contracts. It was additionally explained to the customer that any mechanical issues in progress prior to CARS acceptance of a service contract application are not covered and any failures caused by the use of incorrect transmission fluid in the vehicle were also not covered.

On September 23, 2014 at 3:32 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the transmission was grinding and hesitating. During that telephone call, we explained to the repair facility that this claim would need to be reviewed by CARS management and requested that the repair facility wait to perform any diagnosis and tear down, because CARS had received previous information that the wrong transmission fluid was in the vehicle.

On September 24, 2014 at 10:47 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 for the following two (2) reasons:

1. The customer advised CARS in a recorded call that the failures to the vehicle were present on the date of vehicle purchase (i.e. July 18, 2014), which failures were prior to CARS receiving with payment and approving the customer's service contract (i.e. July 24, 2014); and

?2. The customer advised CARS that the vehicle had the wrong transmission fluid in the vehicle at the time of purchase and that a Mitsubishi dealer replaced the fluid and also the filter.