C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Review: I bought this car from a [redacted] dealer 19 days ago... (Please see attached documents for complete text).Desired Settlement: ...I talked to the insurance (C.A.R.S Protection Plus) and they don't want to cover some of the issues mentioned on the insurance contract. DESIRED SETTLEMENT: Return the car and get my money back. (Please see attached documents for complete text).

Business

Response:

Attached please find CARS' response to Complaint ID #[redacted].

Thank you.

Review: I took my vehicle to [redacted] transmission shop on the 10th of May and it was diagnosed with transmission issues so on the 12th of May they contacted CARS with the information.[redacted] called and asked if I would allow the breakdown to further investigate per instructed by CARS rep, I agreed. Next they called CARS back to discuss the findings and a claim was started but they declined to pay for a rebuild and they would send a unit this was the 15th of May. I myself called CARS to ask about the rent a car that was apart of my warranty and in speaking with [redacted] he states the usage would only be for one day because thats the average time it takes to do the install of the unit.It is now the 23rd of May and no unit has been recieved by [redacted] transmission shop as of 12pm. I called the warranty holder each day but keep getting answering machines I did have one call back that stated the unit was sceduled to arrive on the 21st no later then the 22nd of May. I have had to find transportation to and from work and rides for my children that has to get to and from school during these 2 weeksDesired Settlement: I would like a vehicle provided because there is no way they refused a rebuild then are taking their sweet time to get a unit delivered and I would also like to know what is the warranty on the unit they are providing because I do not need a failed transmission after I was informed they would only pay $280 and I have to come out of pocket $1300.00 for this repair which was a scam from purchase because the dealer said it was suppose to be a $100 deductable and coverage up to $3100.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 23, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 11, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 12, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). The customer’s service contract expired on May 12, 2014.

On May 12, 2014 at 10:03 a.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission problems. We went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised that the customer’s permission was needed to tear down her vehicle to the point of failure so that the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle could be determined. We further advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, she was responsible for all tear down and diagnostic costs. Later that same day we advised the customer of the rental benefits pursuant to her service contract.

On May 14, 2014 at 1:44 p.m., the repair facility advised that the torque converter had failed and plugged the filter. CARS advised the repair facility to fax us an estimate.

After CARS received the estimate, we advised the repair facility of the amount CARS could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the transmission for $600.00. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 7.6 hours to complete and the service contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $380.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $880.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the transmission and pay $280.00 towards labor or pay $880.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that he would get back to us with the customer’s decision. We also explained that if the customer chose to have us ship our supplied transmission instead of taking the money allowance, CARS would not be able to give any warranty on the supplied transmission due to the service contract’s expiration date of May 12, 2014.

On May 15, 2014 the repair facility advised that the customer wanted CARS to ship the transmission to the repair facility. Later that day we ordered the transmission from our supplier. On May 16, 2014 we issued an authorization number to the repair facility for the repair of the customer’s vehicle. At that time we advised that the estimated delivery of the transmission was May 21, 2014. On May 21, 2014 in a voice message, we advised the customer of the estimated delivery date.

Please be advised that our supplier verified that the transmission was delivered to the repair facility on May 23, 2014.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on her Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 3(c): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of

component failure, performed by the repair facility to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” Here, CARS was not requiring unnecessary tear down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle. Therefore, it was appropriate and necessary for us to require tear down of the customer’s vehicle to determine the exact cause of failure and the extent of damage.

In addition, it is clearly stated at Paragraph 2(b): ‘PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE

CONTRACT: Coverage begins the day this application is received with payment and

approved by C.A.R.S.. and will last for the time period or mileage indicated, whichever occurs first, so long as you own the vehicle. The customer’s service contract expired on May 12, 2014; therefore, the transmission that was supplied to the customer by CARS does not have a warranty on parts and labor. This was explained to the repair facility when CARS went over the options that were available to the customer for CARS to assist with the transmission claim made on behalf of her vehicle.

The service contract clearly states under Covered Components: “RENTAL BENEFITS: The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Also the service contract clearly states at Paragraph 2(m): “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any

inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have.” Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered component (transmission) was 7.6 hours based on Mitchell OnDemand Labor Guide; therefore, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customer was not eligible for rental benefits under her service contract.

Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the

service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

We would like to point out here that the customer was given the option of CARS supplying the transmission or taking the cash allowance, the customer advised that she wanted us to ship our part. We supplied both the repair facility and the customer with an estimated delivery date. CARS can only give the repair facility the estimated delivery date given to us by our suppliers. As stated above, pursuant to the terms and condition of the service contract, C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have.

As you can see from the above information, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of her service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on May 12, 2014 and the customer’s vehicle no longer has coverage under any of CARS’ service contracts.

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

Review: CPP is a sham that shouldn't be purchased by anyone. Provided by a dealer at a cost to me of $500, this warranty is worthless. Things it does say are covered are NOT being covered and what little they do cover is at a drastically discounted rate that isn't available at any mechanic. They have a $100. deductible for every claim, will only pay the mechanic $60. per hour and doesn't pay for the labor required to disassemble the vehicle to the point where diagnosis can be made. I have a $877. bill and they are paying $190!I will be contacting NY and Vermont Attorney Generals regarding the fraudulent business practiced of CARS Protection PlusDesired Settlement: I want the purchase price of this warranty refunded to me and I will pay aforementioned bill myself.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 13, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 21, 2013 from [redacted]. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customers’ service contract was received with payment and approved on November 21, 2013 (the attached service contract).

On January 21, 2014 at 10:27 a.m., our customer service department received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the hydraulic lifters and clutch fans. We reviewed the customer’s coverage with the customer and the criteria for a repair facility.

On February 12, 2014 at 1:52 a.m., our customer service department again received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the hydraulic lifters, clutch fans, and a steering issue. We again reviewed the customer’s coverage with the customer and the criteria for a repair facility. The customer wanted CARS to supply the names of repair facilities that the customer could take the vehicle to for repairs. The customer asked to speak to a supervisor. The customer service manager advised the customer advised the customer that we do not recommend repair facilities. The customer service manager gave the customer his direct extension for any repair facility to call if the repair facility had any questions about the customer’s coverage. The customer advised the customer service manager that the customer was going to report us to the Revdex.com and ended the telephone call.

On March 10, 2014 at 10:35 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the power steering pump and clutch fan. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the fan clutch for $49.95 and power steering pump for $97.12. We would pay $5.00 toward the fluids needed for the repair of the vehicle. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated the repair should take 2.3 hours to complete and the service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $138.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We then advised the repair facility that the total amount we could authorize for the claim was $190.07, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the parts as stated above and also pay $38.00 towards the labor or CARS could pay the total amount of $190.07 towards the repair. The repair facility advised us that they would call CARS back with the customer’s decision.

That was the last communication that we had with the repair facility or the customer. We are still waiting to hear back from the repair facility with the customer’s decision on whether the customer would like us to ship the parts to the repair facility or take the cash allowance towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customers’ service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(c): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear- down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.

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

Please be advised that it clearly states on the service contract under labor: “The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility’s rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” We would like to point out here that when the claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair the vehicle, the repair facility advised us that its labor rate was $80.00 dollars per hour. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customer is responsible for the difference in labor rate and time.

Please be further advised that the customer’s service contract clearly and concisely states at Paragraph 2 (j): “CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim.” Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract a $100.00 deductible is applied to each and every claim made on behalf of the service contract holder’s vehicle.

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

In addition, pursuant to the customers’ service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

The customer also stated in the consumer complaint that the customer paid $500.00 for the service contract. As you can clearly see on the service contract, it lists the service contract purchase price as $329.00. The customer is also requesting a full refund of the executed service contract.

The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: Cancellation Provisions: “There is no credit for early

termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time 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.”

Please be advised that CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above­referenced vehicle stating that the customer had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the service contract. Therefore, CARS is not directed by any state statute to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract.

At this time we are waiting to hear back from the repair facility in regard to the customer’s decision so that we may give an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

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. Please be further advised that 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.

Review: When I purchased my vehicle, I was offered a warranty plan through CARS covering my vehicle using CARS ULTIMATE VALUE and protection plan. After reading through the agreement, I felt the coverage was a great idea and good value for the money. After a year of driving my vehicle without any problems, I had a SERVICE AIR BAG light come on as well as a check engine light. I took my vehicle it to my local ASE certified mechanic for diagnostic and problem solving and he claims that I have a bad FRONT END AIR BAG SENSOR and EVAP CANISTER bad on my vehicle. I gave him my policy number for CARS warranty and asked him to submit the claim before any work was to be completed. After he contacted the company, the claimed that it was not covered under the protection plan. After doing my own research and finding many lawsuits against this company, I decided to contact this company and ask to cancel my contract and recieve my investment back. Company representative claimed I could not cancel my warranty unless it was a total loss.Desired Settlement: I want to cancel this contract with this company and refund my money. This warranty is absolutely misleading in every way and I should have purchased a warranty from a more reputable company. Total scam in my opinion and I will recommend the dealership selling this product to look for another company to service his customers.

Business

Response:

VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2007 CHEVY TAHOE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 4, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On December 10, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 4, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). On December 3, 2015 at 2:11 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the evaporator canister and air bag sensor. During that telephone call, we explained to the repair facility that the components in need of repair were not covered under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, the repairs would be the sole responsibility of the customer. On that same date at 2:25 p.m., the customer contacted CARS inquiring about his Service Contract coverage. Our customer service department explained to the customer that the evaporator canister and the air bag sensor were non-covered components under his Service Contract. The customer then inquired about the amount of any refund he would receive if he cancelled his Service Contract coverage. The telephone call was then transferred to our Cancellation/Refund Department. During that telephone call, the customer was advised that pursuant to the Cancellation Provisions of his Service Contract, after 20 days of coverage, he would only be available for a refund if his vehicle was declared a total loss or repossessed. By the customer's signature on his Service Contract he stated that he read understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a and b): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "You have the right to cancel Your Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your Cars I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated..." Also below the covered components on the first page of the customer's Service Contract it states: "COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS." Additionally, there is no Kentucky state statute which requires that CARS provide a refund. Here, the customer had service coverage available to him for eleven (11) months in the event that his vehicle experienced a covered component failure pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind its original decision and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, no refund is available to the customer. The customer has coverage under his Service Contract through January 4, 2019.

Review: I would like to file a complaint on September 22,2015 I took my 2005 Chevy Impala LS to [redacted] to get check out the manager [redacted] told me that the transmission has a Slip 1-2 Shift, Chatters 2-3 Shift, has tcc Chatter, has code 1811 internal, has excessive friction material and metal in pan has internal problem NOTE HAS EXTENDED WARRANTY, BUT MILAGE ON ISSUE IS WRONG, MILAGE MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER FOR WARRAATY TO APPLY & [redacted] also told me to take the to the dealer to have them fax a bill of sale & a car Title them so as I drove to [redacted] SC they told me that they will fax them the information & said that they will call me but never did & [redacted] Never answer the phone as well of September 30, 2015 I talk Mrs. Diane at Cars Protection Plus (on the phone) she got my email on the Issue with the milage on the car but said that I need to go to the ask them to fax the Title & bill of sale to them so I went to the [redacted] in [redacted] SC they told me that theyve have already sent those information to them but when I call Mrs.Diane on October 8, 2015 she told me that they still did not get a bill of sale & title then I filed a complint with the Revdex.com in13860 Ballantyne Corp. Pl. Ste. 225 Charlotte NC 28277 (case no.#[redacted]) Attn: [redacted] on October 12,2015 I just want to get my car fixed ASAP Also [redacted] at [redacted] also filed a claim to Cars Protection Plus as well I would like to know If the dealer fax the car Title & bill of sale to Cars Protection Plus I think that something is wrong if no body got the information at Cars Protection Plus .Desired Settlement: I just want to get my car fix it cost aroud a thousand dollars which I can not aford that kind of money its not fare for me have struggle in to geeting the car fixed I just want my 2005 Chevy Impala LS fixed thats all.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2005 CHEVY IMPALA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated November 17, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows; According to our records the customer purchased the above referenced vehicle on July 8, 2015, On that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles), The Service Contract Application listed that on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 126.000 miles on the odometer. The customer's Service Contract was then accepted with payment by CARS on July 9, 2015 (See attached "Service Contract").On August 28, 2015 at 11:33 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that the check engine light was displayed in his vehicle and there may also be transmission issues. CARS then reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures.On September 22, 2015 at 11:20 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. The repair facility also advised that odometer registered 125.623 miles; which was 377 less miles than the original mileage listed on the Service Contract as the current odometer reading on the date of purchase (July 8, 2015). During that same telephone call, CARS advised the repair facility that we would be unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle, because of the discrepancy in the mileage provided by the selling dealer and the repair facility. We explained to the repair facility that the customer needed to have the selling dealer provide CARS with proof of mileage for his vehicle on the date of purchase. CARS then closed the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.On September 24, 2015 at 1:48 p.m., the selling dealer advised CARS that he would fax documents to correct the customer's mileage; however, CARS has no record of ever receiving information as a result of this telephone conversation.On September 30, 2015 at 10:21 a.m., CARS left a message for the customer to return our telephone call in response to an online submission from the customer regarding the mileage issue with his Servicevehicle. The selling dealer advised CARS that she would search for the necessary documentation and fax it to CARS. Again, CARS has no record of ever receiving any paperwork as a result of this telephone conversation.On September 30, 2015 at 4:26 p.m., the customer returned CARS' telephone call. CARS advised that we would need either the title, bill of sale or an odometer statement to correct the mileage on the customer's Service Contract. The customer advised that he did not have any of the required documents in his possession. CARS then referred the customer to the selling dealer and advised that dealer was aware of what documentation was needed for a correction to be made.On October 7, 2015 at 4:44 p.m., the customer again called to inquire if we received the necessary documentation from the selling dealer. CARS advised the customer that the selling dealer had not provided jjg_with any information regarding the mileage listed on his Service Contract. We again reviewed what documentation was required for CARS to make changes to the mileage listed on the Service Contract. This telephone call was the last communication CARS had with the customer or the selling dealer until we received the above-referenced consumer complaint on November 17, 2015.On November 17, 2015, CARS telephoned the selling dealer two [2) times to attempt to rectify the customer’s issue with the mileage. The dealer did not return CARS' call.On November 18, 2015, CARS received an Odometer Disclosure Statement from the selling dealer via email stating that the odometer registered 123,421 miles on the date of purchase (attached). CARS then made the corrections to our records.On November 18, 2015 at 5:03 p.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility, who had attempted to open a claim on September 22, 2015, to obtain an update on the customer’s vehicle. CARS was advised that the manager of the repair facility would telephone CARS on November 19, 2015.On November 19, 2015 at 2:13 p.m., CARS again telephoned the previous repair facility to obtain an update on the customer's vehicle. CARS was advised by the manager that there were no 2005 Chevy Impala's there for repair. CARS then closed the claim.On November 19, 2015, CARS left a voice message advising the customer to have a repair facility open a claim on behalf of his vehicle. We further advised that we would process the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles), he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. Directly above the customer’s signature the Service Contract states: "ACCEPTANCE TO TERMS: I have read, understand and agree to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions as stated on the front and reverse side of this Service Contract Application. This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this application is received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of purchase. I certify the information above is true and correct, and I will contact CARS if I have not received a CARS LD. card within 15 days. I understand that I am responsible for $100.00 deductible per claim. I acknowledge receipt of my copy of this Service Contract." Here, the odometer reading listed on the Service Contract was inaccurate; therefore, CARS was correct in requesting information from the customer/dealer regarding the true mileage on the customer's vehicle at the time of purchase.CARS would like to point out here that the having the correct odometer reading on the Service Contract is a requirement by CARS in order for us to make informed decision on component coverage when a claim is opened on behalf of a customer’s vehicle. The listing of the correct mileage is veryService Contract purchase can be equated to a vehicle's "date of birth” and is used to ensure regular and proper maintenance of a vehicle, such as an oil change, air filter change, tire wear, etc. The wrong mileage listed on the service contract can prevent this type of maintenance which is critical to the long term health and care of a vehicle from being tracked by the customer and CARS. This, of course, is also a critical component to determine the value of a vehicle. Here, the customer signed his Service Contract stating that the above information was true; however, he later informed CARS that the mileage information provided by the selling dealer was in error. Therefore, CARS was correct in not moving forward with the customer’s claim until we were provided documentation from the dealer that an error had been made and were provided with the corrected information.CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers, repair facilities and/or customer, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Here, the dealer listed the current odometer reading on the date of purchase as 126.000 miles. At our request, the dealer provided documentation to CARS on November 18, 2015 stating that the odometer reading at the time of purchase was 123,421 miles.As stated above the customer needs to have a repair facility open a claim on behalf vehicle as outlined under the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. When a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract, If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.At this time CARS considers the customer's consumer complaint 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,[redacted] General Counsel

Review: I bought a 2004 dodge ram 1500 with a cars protection plus warrenty good for 1 year 15000 miles I had it 3 months when I had a problem with the motor only put 2600 miles on it had it towed to shop I was told I had to pay to tear motor down which I did the mechanic found that there was a bad piston they asked him to measure heads to see if they eere warped they were not they asked for pictures he did they sent a inspector out to confirm what the mechanic said he did now they want to know exactly what caused the piston to go bad the mechanic said there is no way to tell exactly so they wont fixDesired Settlement: Used motor installed

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 10, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased his 2004 Dodge 1500 on April 24, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on April 28, 2014 (See attached Service Contract],

Review: We paid $600 for the extended warranty that in all the paperwork states clearly that except for the $100.00 deductible and excessive hourly rates charged by the repair shop that the repairs would be covered. Out of a wheel bearing replacement that came in around $500 the warranty company only paid $102 and change after the deuctible. This is false advertising. In addition to this the customer service experience was terrible. My wife called and spoke to them in addition to [redacted] and at no point according to those involved on my side did CARS mention that to reduce the repair cost that they would ship the parts needed for the repair. That was never mentioned to me when I bought the warranty either that the repair times would be much longer. My wife went to [redacted] at 8am to sign the paperwork on 10/31/2013 and it was not until I called CARS at 2:00pm wondering why payment was being held up that I was told that information was missed on the invoice by [redacted]. The customer service agent (Al) said he was going to call shortly. This was 6 hours after he received that paperwork from Firestone. Unacceptable customer service.Desired Settlement: I would like the labor to be paid back to me at least at the $50 level for the 4.1 hours that all the labor guides I have seen give for the [redacted] wheel bearing replacement. I was told by Al that CARS was only reimbursing for 3 hours labor. I also think that because of the misleading information of the parts shipping that the parts should be covered in full for this repair. I should be responsible only for the $100 deductible and the excess labor charges that would amount to about half.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 1, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 25, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 151,200 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 31, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On October 30, 2013 at 11:58 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the front wheel bearings, seals, and front right axle. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could ship the right front wheel bearing and seals for $42.01. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 3.2 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $160.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We then advised the repair facility that the total amount we could authorize for the claim was $102.01, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the parts as stated above and pay $60.00 towards the labor or pay the total amount of $102.01 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

On October 30, 2013 at 1:52 p.m., we then gave the repair facility an authorization number for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

On October 31, 2013 at 12:14 p.m. we advised the repair facility that the invoice that was sent to us for payment did not have the mileage or the parts and labor warranty on it. After receiving a corrected final invoice, we paid the repair facility $102.01 via credit card pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Limited Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(c): “A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear- down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” It also is clearly stated in the customer’s service contract at Paragraph 2(j): “C.A.R.S. will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a one hundred $100.00 dollar deductible per claim.

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 $50.00 per hour. Should your repair facility’s rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” We would like to point out here that when the claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair the customer’s vehicle, the repair facility advised us that the repair facility’s labor rate was $96.00 dollars per hour. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customer is responsible for the difference.

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

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.

The customer states in the consumer complaint that the customer had unacceptable customer service because the repair facility had to wait six (6) hours for payment. We would like to point out here that the repair facility did not follow the proper claim procedures when they originally submitted the first final invoice. As you can see from all the above information, CARS promptly processed, authorized and paid the customer’s claim, once we received the correct invoice in just slightly over twenty-four (24) hours.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any further assistance with the October 30, 2013 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. We believe that we have fulfilled all our obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

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,

General Counsel

Review: After only 3 payments on my car the transmission failed. I took the car to * dealership. After a week and a half a decision was finally made by warranty company to fix the car. We opted to pay an additional $1184 in misc. charges and parts covered by warranty and some not covered. We went out of our way to pay what was necessary to assist in the new transmission lasting. However, after 84 miles the used transmission failed. We only drove from the dealership to a high school and called for towing by the dealership who fixed the car in the first place. After another week a transmission was sent to the mechanic. A new transmission is supposed to arrive to my mechanic today.

My issue is the warranty company will not pay the towing cost. They also said there was no other or better option for me when I needed it towed. My car barely made it to the parking lot during a snow storm. Was I supposed to park it on the side of the highway during a storm, with 4 kids in my car, 84 miles after I just had it fixed? That seems unsafe doesn't it? Completely unreasonable! Was I supposed to call another tow company? To tow the car to another mechanic and start all over? That doesn't seem reasonable either.

To top all of it off the warranty company does not respond in a reasonable time when I call and leave messages. I have to continue to miss work day after day! It has cost me thousands of dollars because I cannot work due to no vehicle again. It has been almost a month since my car first went to the mechanic. Every delay in the process has been because of the warranty company. This has been a headache and stressful situation from day one. I was hoping the warranty company would be reasonable and professional since they say they are, I have not been satisfied yet with their so called warranty. Often times I have had to go above the assigned adjuster because he fails to call me or my mechanic back.Both transmissions are from their parts supplier and we along with my mechanic have had to battle them also. By the time my car is fixed for the second time, I will have lost work for 30 days and not had a car for all of that time. I don't think the amount of towing $435 is too much to ask for considering I did everything I could to make sure the first time it was fixed would work. And I did not do anything to the car for the transmission to fail. Why pay for a warranty that picks and chooses when or how to cover services? When the replaced transmission failed, my car sat untouched with no news from warranty company over Thanksgiving break. My family has had to beg family for rides to holiday parties, grocery stores, school activities,many many more events. This whole experience has set our family back thousands of dollars and it is almost Christmas.Desired Settlement: Refund me the full amount of towing from my mechanic! I did everything I was supposed to, I think it's only fair the warranty company does the same for me!!

Business

Response:

December 2, 2015 RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 BUICK RENDEZVOUS CX VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated December 1, 2015 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint regarding reimbursement of her recent towing expenses. Please note that in the afternoon on December 1, 2015 our Claims Manager reviewed the customer's claim. Subsequently he then contacted the customer and advised that CARS would pay the tow bill in the total amount of $435.00, once the customer provides us with a copy of the tow bill. Therefore, CARS believes that this complaint is now resolved. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I paid almost $2000.00 for a bogus warranty they say they will pay for the parts until you make a claim and then they tell you it's not covered so hopefully I can convince other people not to waste their money.what a sorry excuse for a warranty company they should be ashamed of themselves.

Review: I purchase a warranty on my 2002 Dodge Ram last year good for 4 years. I have the Value Plus plan which distinctly covers a radiator. My radiator has busted and has leaked everywhere. I took it to a local dealer who called this company as they request to get an authorization number. I understand because it's on my warranty very clearly they will pay $60 per labor hour, and I am liable for any overage and my $100 deductible. The agent told my mechanic they won't pay market price for a new radiator! So either I have to wait for this company to ship a radiator of their choice to my mechanic (likely used or low quality), or I have to pay the difference between their paying rate and the market rate for the radiator through my dealer. It says NOWHERE on my warranty paperwork that they will not cover the full cost of the radiator itself. I am VERY unhappy. Now I sit with a busted radiator waiting on them to ship one because otherwise they want me to pay extra!Desired Settlement: I want them to cover the radiator that my mechanic has without any additional cost to me.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 22, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On May 20, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on May 24, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On October 22, 2014 at 2:27 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing radiator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Later that same day, CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the radiator for $160.59. We would also authorize $20.00 for fluids for the repair. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 1.2 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $72.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $152.59, and we could supply the parts and assist with the cost of fluids as stated above; however, we would be unable to assist with labor because the labor cost was less than the $100.00 deductible. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.

On October 23, 2014 at 9:12 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to have the radiator shipped to the repair facility. We again advised the repair facility that since CARS was supplying the radiator and the labor was less than the $100.00 deductible, the customer was responsible for all other charges.

By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement 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. Here, the supplied part is new and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, covered through the service contract expiration date of May 24, 2017.

Additionally, the service contract states under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 2Q): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." Here, the customer chose to have CARS supply the radiator; therefore, the cost of labor was less than the $100.00 deductible.

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 his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to offer any further assistance for the October 22, 2014 radiator claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, the radiator that CARS selected for the customer's vehicle is new and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, covered through the service contract expiration date of May 24, 2017.

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

Review: On October 2, 2014 my vehicle was towed to the closet dealership that handles my make and model vehicle. It was there it was diagnosed. The transmission needed to be replaced. On October 6, 2014 I was contacted by the dealership that Cars Protection Plus would ONLY cover a used (or) aftermarket transmission and that they (the dealership) does NOT offer any warranty on these types of parts. I immediately contacted Cars Protection Plus. The adjuster by the name of [redacted] was extremely rude and told me that when my warranty expires in December of 2014 so will the warranty of the product that was placed on my vehicle. No other warranty will be given for this product afterwards. [redacted]'s exact words were "this is the most cost effective way for us". "Your contract states that we CAN use aftermarket products or used parts to replace or fix issues". Not that they have to, but they can. I am a single mom on a fixed income. It is incredibly sicking that these types of warranty companies are allowed to do this to their own customers. I understand cost effectiveness, but right is right and wrong is wrong. This is just wrong on so many levels.Desired Settlement: I would like for Cars Protection Plus to pay for the new transmission to placed in my vehicle so that the dealership would offer a warranty on their product and service. Cars Protection Plus would be out of the equation, and no more money would come out of their pockets.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 7, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On December 11, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on December 15, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract").

On October 6, 2014 at 11:02 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Later that same day, after CARS received and reviewed the estimate from the repair facility, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1,500.00. Mitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take 8.6 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $430.00. 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 $1,830.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $430.00 towards labor or pay $1,830.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.

On October 7, 2014 at 11:55 a.m., we went over the claim allowance with the customer. The customer stated that we should be paying for a new transmission for her vehicle. We then went over the terms and conditions of the service contract. The customer then stated we were a "rip-off' and hung up on our claims adjustor.

On October 8, 2014 at 1:00 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the supplied transmission. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle.

?By the customer’s signature on her Power Train Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of her service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. In this instance, the replacement transmission for the customer’s vehicle will have less mileage (50,000 miles] than the transmission (89,635 miles) that is being replaced.

Review: payed for service contract. put car in shop to be fixed car was in the shop for a week or more was in a rental car waiting for my car to be fixed no respond from cars protection plus so payed for diagnosed test and hood to be fixed and cancel my service contract. will not discuss my refund with menoneDesired Settlement: none

Consumer

Response:

I wood like s refund.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 28, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the dealer submitted to CARS an Ultimate Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) application on behalf of the customer on July 9, 2013. On that same date, CARS approved with payment the customer's service contract (the attached "Service Contract”). On August 11, 2 014 at 4:04 p.m., a claim was opened by a repair facility regarding issues with the customer's vehicle, specifically the hood cables, struts, thermostat, and vacuum pump. We then went over our claim procedures. On August 12, 2 014 at 2:36 p.m., we advised repair facility of the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the thermostat for $50.00 and $24.98 toward coolant for a total of $74.98. Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide stated that the repair should take 3.2 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $125.00 per hour. Therefore, the total labor cost was $400.00. We explained that the total value of the claim was $474.98, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $400.00 towards labor or pay $474.98 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The other components in need of repair (i.e. hood cables trusts and vacuum pump) were not listed as a covered component pursuant to the service contract; therefore, they were the sole responsibility of the customer to repair. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision. On that that same day, the repair facility advised us that the customer wanted to take our money allowance for the repair. CARS then issued the repair facility an Authorization Number for the repair, which was valid for 180 days. Thereafter, on August 19, 2 014 CARS received a service coverage cancellation request from the customer supplying the lienholder's name and address. Pursuant to the customer's cancellation request, CARS mailed a prorated refund check to the lienholder in the amount of $510.06. This refund amount was based upon the $2,400.00 the customer paid for the service contract, less $1,400.00 representing fourteen (14) months proration, less 10% cancellation fee in the amount of $14.96, less the claim authorized in the amount of $474.98 as stated above. At the time we processed the refund, CARS was unaware that the repairs were not completed.

On the same date we received this complaint, CARS also received a letter from the customer’s lienholder returning the check in the amount of $510.06, advising that the customer's lien had been paid off. CARS then contacted the repair facility to verify if the authorized repairs were performed on the vehicle. The repair facility advised that n o repairs were performed; therefore, our claims manager cancelled the Authorization Number given for the repair and also cancelled the claim. Based upon this new information, CARS recalculated the prorated refund now due and owing to the customer as follows: Customer's cost of service contract - $2,400.00 Less 14 months proration @ $100.00 per month - ($1,400.00] Less Service Fee - f$ 14.96) In a good will gesture, CARS did not change the 10% service fee, which was originally based on the prorated refund of $510.06 originally sent to the lienholder and not on the actual refund above listed. If CARS would have properly calculated the 10% service fee based upon the new refund amount, said service fee would have been significantly higher, thereby reducing the customer's prorated refund. I would like to further address the customer's concerns as follows: 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. It is n o t comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customers what is specifically covered and their financial responsibility for diagnosis charges beyond the available coverage, taxes, the difference in labor rates and time. Here, as stated above, some of the items in need of repair were not listed for coverage under the customer's Ultimate Plus Service Contract; therefore, those repairs would have been the sole responsibility of the customer to repair. I believe that CARS has adequately addressed and also resolved all of the customers' concerns. The customer’s refund check in the amount of $985.04 is being processed and will be mailed directly to their address sometime this week, once the same is drafted by our accounts payable department. 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. TOTAL REFUND DUE CUSTOMER $ 985.04 Sincerely,

Review: I purchased a C.A.R.S. extended warranty plan which covered the period of 9/21/2007 until 3/27/2013 at which time they would not renew due to the age/mileage of the vehicle.I submitted a claim for the repair of my AC system in March of 2013.C.A.R.S. supplied the compressor and other repair parts to my local mechanic.The mechanic installed the new parts and completed the job the same day that my C.A.R.S. warranty expired, 3/27/2013.C.A.R.S. paid the mechanic the contractually agreed portion.The vehicle was barely used the summer of 2013 (It has been driven about 2800 miles in the last 14 months), and when it was used that summer, the AC did not work.The mechanic assumed that there was a leak somewhere and told me that I should bring it in to get a dye test. He stated that it was unlikely to be the compressor, and if it was my research showed a manufacturer warranty on that part for 24 mos. so I was not worried.This year, 2014,(in March before the heat of the summer) I brought the vehicle in for a dye test.The mechanic performed the test and said that the compressor is leaking.I called [redacted], (the compressor manufacturer) to put in a claim but they told me that the claim needs to go through the distributor that sold it.I called C.A.R.S. to find out where they purchased the compressor that I might submit a warranty claim on the compressor.C.A.R.S. told me that they would not disclose the vendor from which they purchased the compressor.Upon further inquiry [redacted] at C.A.R.S. told me that the part warranty expired on the very same day that it was installed and that they would be of "no further assistance"My request is that I be given the ability to make a warranty claim against the parts manufacturer. It is not equitable that the manufacturer warranty should be deemed void by C.A.R.S.If C.A.R.S. reserves the right to make parts claims against the manufacturers of parts that they supply there is no reason that they should not do this on my behalf. It would cost C.A.R.S. nothingDesired Settlement: My request is that I be given the ability to make a warranty claim against the parts manufacturer. It is not equitable that the manufacturer warranty should be deemed void by C.A.R.S.If C.A.R.S. reserves the right to make parts claims against the manufacturers of parts that they supply there is no reason that they should not do this on my behalf. It would cost C.A.R.S. nothingIf C.A.R.S. has another suggestion that they believe would be equitable in the sight of just people I am open to it

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on September 20, 2007. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (6 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on September 27, 2007. (See attached Service Contract). On February 21, 2008, the customer renewed his service contract via fax using a credit card for an additional term of (24 months/Unlimited Miles). The customer had service contract coverage through March 27, 2010. On March 19, 2010, the customer again renewed his service contract via phone using a credit card for an additional term of (36 months/Unlimited Miles). The customer had service contract coverage through March 27, 2013.

Since the inception of the customer’s service contract our records reveal six (6) claims have been opened, all which were authorized by CARS. Of those six (6) claims, three (3) claims were previous to 2009 and all three (3) claims were paid in the total amount of $477.54 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customers’ service contract. The most recent three (3) claims are outlined as follows:

FIRST CLAIM: On July 20, 2009 we received a telephone call from [redacted] at [redacted] advising that the customer was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the fuel pump. After the allowance for the claim was explained to the repair facility, the customer chose to have our supplied part sent to the repair facility. After receiving the final repair invoice, CARS paid the amount of $86.00 on July 28, 2009 to the customer. Thereafter, CARS paid the parts supplier on August 11, 2009, the amount of $290.10 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

SECOND CLAIM: On February 13, 2012 we received a telephone call from [redacted] at [redacted] advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the fuel pump. During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the fuel pump for $326.88. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 3.3 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $198.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $424.00 once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the fuel pump and pay $98.00 towards labor or pay $424.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that the customer chose to have CARS ship the part. We then gave an authorization number to the repair facility and reviewed the requirements for payment by CARS. Please be advised that the final invoice for the cost of labor was never received by CARS; therefore, no payment was sent to the repair facility for labor. However, on March 5, 2012 CARS paid our parts supplier the amount of $326.88. The claim was closed after 180 days pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

THIRD CLAIM: On March 12, 2013 we received a telephone call from [redacted] at [redacted] advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the a/c compressor. During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the compressor for $294.80 and the drier for $16.57. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 2.2 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $132.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $343.37 once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the a/c compressor and drier and pay $32.00 towards labor or pay $343.37 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that the customer wanted CARS to ship our supplied a/c compressor and drier. We then gave an authorization number to the repair facility and reviewed the requirements for payment by CARS. Please be advised that the final invoice for the cost of labor was never received by CARS; therefore, no payment was sent to the repair facility. However, on April 4, 2013, CARS paid our parts supplied the amount of $346.37. The claim was closed after 180 days pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on the service contract, the customer acknowledged that he read and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is clearly stated in the service contract under terms and conditions: ‘PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY: The Limited Warranty is between the vehicle owner as stated above and CARS. The Limited Warranty begins the day this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S., and will last for the time period or mileage set forth above, whichever occurs first, so long as you own the vehicle. The customer’s service contract expired on March 27, 2013; therefore, the supplied a/c compressor and drier no longer have any coverage the under the CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty.

Please be further advised that it is clearly stated under the terms and conditions: “WARRANTY CLAIM PROCEDURE: “CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of the parts to be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer had the choice to have our supplied a/c compressor and drier shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for 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 have CARS ship the a/c compressor and drier to the repair facility.

We would like to reiterate, any warranty on the supplied parts and labor, either with CARS or CARS’ supplier ended when the customer’s service contract expired. In addition, the customer was given the option of having CARS ship replacement parts to the repair facility or to take cash allowance to assist with the repair of the vehicle. To reiterate, the customer chose to have CARS supply the a/c compressor and drier shipped to the repair facility.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled its obligation to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on March 27, 2013 and his vehicle no longer has coverage under any of CARS service contracts.

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

Very truly yours,

Consumer

Response:

Review: I bought a used truck at a used car dealership and a 3 month warranty was provided. The warranty was 4 days from expiring when the transmission failed. I followed the instructions on the paperwork and carried it to a repair facility and gave them the infomation on the warranty to have repairs made. In the fine print contained in the warranty it states that the repair facility must remove the transmission, tear it down and give CARS the reason for failure, this is considered diagnostics that I must pay for. After this was done and a cost to rebuild the transmission was given to CARS, they instructed them to put in a used transmission with like mileage and gave them the price they would allow. I called and spoke with a supervisor there this morning asking him why they would replace a bad transmission with one with the same mileage. His comments to me were that the unit he was replacing it with had been tested and pressures were checked and it was better than what I had. When I asked him to provide me with written verification that the pressures had been tested and meet specifacation he said he could not do that. He also stated that my warranty had now expired and once I drove the truck away it had no more warranty. He also wanted to play symantics with me and tell me that this was not a "warranty" but a "service contract", it is explicitly implied that this is a warranty. There was a $600 difference in the salvage transmission and rebuilding the bad one, I know there is a $100 deductible, so I asked them to split the difference in the remaining $500 to which he refused. If you do just a little research on this company you can find that these same exact problems exist everywhere they do business. According to a consumer website listing the best used car warranties they do not even make the list. I will also be fowarding this to the Alabama Attorney General's office to try and get them removed from doing business in this state.Desired Settlement: I would like for them to at least pay half, $250.00, of the differnce, $500.00, in the 2 prices.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 13, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On August 7, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 132,073 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 August 9, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”). The customer’s service contract expired on November 9, 2013.

On November 7, 2013 at 11:25 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the transmission. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, after the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and estimate for repair, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $850.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 4.8 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $240.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $990.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the transmission and pay $140.00 towards labor or pay $990.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On November 12, 2013 at 9:49 a.m., a claims manager reviewed with the customer all the terms and conditions of his service contract. The claims manager also advised that if the customer chose our supplied transmission for the repair, once the customer’s vehicle leaves the repair facility, there would be no warranty on the shipped transmission because the customer’s service contract expired on November 9, 2013.

Later that same day, the repair facility advised us that the customer would take the money allowance for the repair. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin the repair of the customer’s vehicle. After we received the final invoice (attached) from the repair facility on November 12, 2013 signed by the customer stating that the repairs were completed, CARS paid $990.00 to the repair facility via [redacted] on that same date.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Power Train Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer had the choice to have our supplied transmission shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for 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 used part that has equal or fewer miles when replacing a failed component.

The customer states in his consumer complaint that our service contract claim procedures for diagnostics is in fine print. As you can see from our service contract it is in bold print and the same size print as all of the other terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. It clearly states in bold at Paragraph 3(c) “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A

proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.

In addition, it is clearly stated at Paragraph 2(b): ‘PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE

CONTRACT: Coverage begins the day this application is received with payment and

approved by C.A.R.S., and will last for the time period or mileage indicated, whichever occurs first, so long as you own the vehicle. The customer’s service contract expired on November 9, 2013; therefore, any transmission that could have been supplied to the customer by CARS would not have coverage beyond November 9, 2013.

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 is unable to offer any further assistance with the November 7, 2013 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. We believe that we have fulfilled all our

obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on November 9, 2013; therefore, the customer no longer has coverage under any of CARS service contracts.

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statements regarding his “research” on our company. 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. Please be further advised that 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 twenty-nine (29) states and at any given time our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: Had a 3/month, 4,500 mile warranty from CARS Protection Plus for a used car we purchased on November 11, 2015 from [redacted] Motors.

It is a 2008 Subaru Impreza. I took it to my local mechanic for a look and he said the engine was not leaking any fluids and was in overall good shape.

On Saturday, February 6, 2016, I noticed a burning smell coming from the engine compartment as I drove home - I was less than a mile from my driveway. No engine lights came on, but when I opened the hood I could see oil leaking out of the right side of the engine. At that time the oil light came on and I shut off the engine. Because it was Saturday, I waited to have the car towed until Monday.

On Monday, February 8, 2016, I had the car towed to [redacted] Service Center in [redacted] He is a certified Subaru shop and we take all of our cars there. He had to take apart the engine to determine what was wrong. He found that the right cylinder head developed a problem that stopped the flow of oil and cause the head to get hot. This in turn caused a seal on the right side to develop a leak sending the oil out of the engine.

We explained this to an adjuster at CARS Protection Plus who denied the claim saying they don't cover seals or oil problems.

When you get a warranty that covers engine problems, is my situation an engine problem beyond my control?

I now have a $2,300 bill to put the engine back together with new seals and gaskets, and I believe CARS Protection Plus warranty should cover some if not all of the work needed to make this right.Desired Settlement: I believe CARS Protection Plus should pay for this claim because the oil leak happened AFTER the problem in the cylinder head caused it to heat up thus causing the seal to fail AFTERWARDS.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2008 SUBARU IMPREZA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your February 16, 2016 letter enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint and respond as follows: On November 14, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on November 18, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). The customer's Service Contract expires on February 18, 2016. On February 9, 2016, at 2:12 p.m., a mechanical claim was opened by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing cylinder head, timing belt, water pump and valve cover issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On February 9, 2016, at 2:35 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had an oil leak on the right side of the engine. The repair facility advised that the cam seal became overheated and melted causing an active leak. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle needed a head, the intake valve was stuck and the timing belt was contaminated from the oil leak. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle and contact CARS with their findings. On February 10, 2016, at 11:54 a.m., the repair facility advised that after the front cover was removed they found the right cam seal had melted and caused an oil leak. The repair facility advised that the cam caps and rocker arms were discolored and the cylinder head needed to be replaced. CARS then advised the repair facility to fax an estimate to CARS for review. On February 11, 2016, at 9:34 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the failure to the customer's vehicle was caused by an oil leak; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS was not able to assist with the repair to the customer’s vehicle. On February 11, 2016, at 9:34 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the customer and advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS was not able to assist with the repair to the customer’s vehicle. On February 11, 2016, at 11:13 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the repair facility and advised that according to the estimate submitted by the repair facility, all of the failures to the engine were caused by oil leaks. CARS advised that pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is unable to assist with any failures caused by oil leaks. By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under Covered Components: "SEALS & GASKETS: NOT COVERED: Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with replacement of a covered component. Additionally, cylinder head gaskets are covered for combustion and coolant leaks. Intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks only. NOT COVERED: oil and vacuum leaks." Furthermore the customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle found that a failed cam seal (non-covered component) caused an oil leak which caused the damage to the customer's vehicle. Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. For these reasons, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the February 9, 2016 claim made on behalf of his vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

Review: On October 9 2015 I purchased a vehicle from a local used car dealership and they included a warranty from CARS, after reading over the CARS documents I decided that I did not want the warranty. I called the company several times because in the paperwork it stated that I would receive my ID card in 7 days after signing for my new car, but after almost 2 weeks I had not received anything from the company, too which I was placed on hold every single time and never answered, so I proceeded to write up a cancellation and send it to the company. In my agreement with CARS it stated that I had 20 days to cancel, which would be October 29 2015, which I sent out on the 20th of October. Today in the mail I received a letter from CARS stating that my refund was denied because my request was made after the 20 day grace period for cancellations and that I could still cancel but they would not refund my $2400.00. how is this possible if I sent in the proper paperwork in the time frame?! This company is nothing but a scam and just out to get people and their money. I don't want their service and don't think because they are slow to process something that I should be forced into having it.Desired Settlement: I just want my warranty cancelled and a refund of my $2400.00 sent back to my finance company.

Business

Response:

COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 FORD F250 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] 1 am in receipt of your letter dated November 9, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 8, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Onyx Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 9, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). After a management review of the customer's consumer complaint, CARS determined that the customer was entitled to full refund of the amount CARS received for his Service Contract. Attached please find a copy of our check no. [redacted] which will be mailed to the customer's lienholder. By Mr. [redacted]' signature on his Service Contract he stated that he read understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "You have the right to cancel Your Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your Cars I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid, by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S.” Please note that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to selling dealers. Therefore, what Mr. [redacted] paid for his Service Contract (i.e. $2,400.00) is not what CARS received for the cost of his Service Contract. The amount received by CARS is reflected in the copy of the attached check made out to the customer's lienholder. CARS advised the selling dealer that the customer is eligible for a refund and the selling dealer is responsible for providing the remaining amount to the customer's lienholder (see attached letter). When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Review: August 1, 2014, I purchased a 2003 Toyota Camry from [redacted]. I purchased the vehicle with warranty that was through Cars Protection Plus. July 16th 2014 my car transmission went out. I had my car towed to [redacted]. and gave [redacted] from the service department the warranty information. I received a return call from [redacted] from [redacted] and he stated that the warranty company was giving him the run and around and that maybe I should call. I called Cars Protection Plus on 7/21/14 I spoke to [redacted] did not seem concerned at all about addressing my claim. I asked if he would please send out an inspector. He refused. I then called my insurance company and filed a claimed they sent an inspector out the next day. They determined that because it was internal issue that they would not cover. I called [redacted] back on 7/24/14 to let him know what the Insurance said he did agree finally to talk with the dealership to arrange for inspection. After several days I received a call from the dealership telling me the warranty company would not cover. I heard no word of a decision from the warranty company only a call asking about my tires. I called and asked for the claims Supervisor and spoke with [redacted] on 8/1/14. I proceeded to tell my story and was constantly interrupted without being able to explain what happened. Again I was treated unkind by this company and was told the warranty would not cover because of a change in tires. I asked why the company didnt do a vehicle history report to see if prior damage was done to vehicle or if vehicle had prior issues. I explained the vehicle history report I had showed the car had been in an accident. I was told he was sure the damage was not caused by the accident I then asked how then can you be sure changing tires would cause transmission issues. I then stated to him I was told by dealership and a transmission shop that changing tires would not cause that sort of damage. I also stated to [redacted] that his company seemed reluctant from the beginning to do anything to assist and this was before inspection. This company showed no concern from start to finish and acted as if I deliberately cause damage to my own vehicle. I believe this company did not honor their warranty commitment and was bad with customer service. I am an honest person in a difficult situation. A little further investigation may have provided information that I did indeed purchase this vehicle with damage unknown. I felt as if this company wanted to find a way out of being responsible. I would like a refund if possible for payment of the warranty. Thank you for your time and investigation into this matter.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of warranty payment which was paid with cost of purchase of vehicle.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 1, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 25, 2014. On that same date she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on April 28, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On July 17, 2014 at 3:06 p.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facility and advised that the customer was responsible for any difference in labor rate, tax, fluid, filters, and deductible, diagnostic or teardown charges where applicable and any charges/expenses beyond what CARS authorizes. We additionally advised that the repair facility was to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of component failure and contact us with their findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle.

On July 21, 2014 at 3:56 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising that the repair facility told her the vehicle had been in an accident previously and some damage was still evident. CARS then advised if the failure to her vehicle was caused by an accident, we would not be able to assist with the claim and went over her service contract coverage in detail. The customer then requested that CARS send an inspector to look at her vehicle. We explained that we required a cause of failure and the extent of damage to her vehicle from the repair facility before it would be determined if an independent inspection was necessary to verify the repair facility's findings. The customer then became upset and called us a scam. We again reviewed that diagnostic/teardown costs were her responsibility pursuant to her service contract.

Thereafter on July 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., we received another telephone call from the customer advising that her insurance company sent an adjustor to look at her vehicle and they determined the failure was caused by a component inside the vehicle. She requested that we call the repair facility. CARS then contacted the repair facility, wherein they advised that no tear down had been performed on the vehicle. We again reviewed our claim procedures and the requirement for teardown to the point of component failure. The repair facility agreed to call us with their findings.

On July 24, 2014 at 4:20 p.m., the repair facility advised us that the customer’s vehicle was not apart; however, the technician stated that he could see that the cause of failure was a broken pin in the spider gears. We then explained that CARS would only pay for one independent inspection and there would be a fee to the customer for a second inspection if the cause of failure and extent of damage cannot be verified.

The independent inspection occurred on July 28, 2014. The independent inspector found the vehicle to have oversize wheels/tires. In addition, the independent inspector also found that the further teardown would be required to verify the exact cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.

On July 29, 2014 at 11:35 a.m., in a recorded telephone call the customer advised CARS that she put the oversized wheels/tires on the vehicle after the purchase date.

On July 29, 2014 at 1:21 p.m., we left a message for the repair facility advising that we were unable to assist with the July 17, 2014 transmission claim because the customer's vehicle was altered/modified with oversized wheels/tires. We then attempted to call the customer but we were unable to reach her at the telephone number on her service contract.

On August 1, 2014 at 11:32 p.m., our claims manager attempted to go over the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract with her; however, she advised that since CARS would not change its mind she would not listen to him.

By the customer's signature on her service contract, she acknowledged that she read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer's specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed.” Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the service contract." Additionally, "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS." To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the July 17, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle were made by the customer after the date of vehicle purchase. As stated above, the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications and can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

Here, we would like to point out that in the consumer's complaint she states that CARS did not care about addressing her claim and we would not inspect her vehicle. As evidenced in the above paragraphs, we thoroughly explained to the customer and the repair facility that the vehicle

Review: On 01/03/2014, my son and I purchased a used 2003 Nissan Pathfinder from [redacted] in Topeka, KS. In conjection with this vehicle purchase, we bought a 3-yr, unlimited mileage extended service warranty from CARS Protection Plus (Value Plus Coverage). In June 2014, my son, on a trip to St. Louis, MO, experienced performance problems and a service engine check light. He took the Pathfinder to [redacted], a NAPA and Revdex.com certified facility. Their diagnosis revealed that the timing chain and sprockets needed to be replaced. This is specifically listed as covered under the Value Plus Protection warranty purchased from CARS. CARS has refused to pay for this repair verbally to both [redacted] and myself because it is due to their claim of an "unauthorized rebuild" being performed on the Pathfinder. What "unauthorized rebuild"? There was no after market equipment on the Pathfinder, it passed mechanical inspection and ran petfectly well. This "unauthorized rebuild" was not identified by [redacted] or CARS Protection Plus at the time of purchase as being present or is a limitation of this Pathfinder. Who in the world would buy an extended warranty if it is no good? Who would sell it, besides CARS apparently? The extended warranty was purchased on the vehicle, as is, at the time of its purchase by us from CARS. Period. [redacted] and I believe this is a case of CARS Protection Plus simply refusing to pay for a repair whose cost is much greater than the cost of the extended warranty purchase price.Desired Settlement: Simply honor your obligation to pay [redacted] to replace the timing chain and gears (approximately $3300) and accept your responsibility for repairs for the duration of the purchased warranty.

Business

Response:

I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: On January 2, 2014 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). On January 9, 2014 the service contract application was accepted with payment and approved by CARS (the attached “Service Contract”).

FIRST CLAIM: On January 16, 2014, at 1:32 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair

facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the thermostat. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply a thermostat for $36.25. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.2 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $72.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $8.25 and we could supply the thermostat as stated above or pay $8.25 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. However, we would not be able to assist with labor since it would be less than the deductible. On January 17, 2014 we were advised by the repair facility that the customer paid for the claim out of pocket. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On May 15, 2014 at 2:54 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the catalytic converter. We advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, the catalytic converter is a non-covered component; therefore, we would not be able to assist with the claim.

THIRD CLAIM: On June 10, 2014, at 1:32 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the timing chain and catalytic converter. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We advised the repair facility that they needed to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down his vehicle to the point of failure so that we could determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. We further advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, he was responsible for all tear down and diagnostic costs. We explained that the catalytic converter is a non-covered components under the customer’s service contract. We then advised the repair facility to get back to us with their findings.

During the processing of the claim the repair facility advised CARS in two (2) recorded telephone calls on June 13, 2014 and in writing (attached) that the failures to the customer’s vehicle were caused by excessive silicone sealant spray during a previous improper repair. The repair facility found RTV (silicone spray) over the timing covers in what appeared to be an attempt to stop an oil leak. The silicone sealant was also sprayed onto the cam phasers. As a result, the silicone sealant then got into the oil channels on the cam phasers causing issues with the timing system. The primary chain was stretched and the camshaft chains were damaged due to the constant adjusting and re-adjusting of the cam phasers.

On June 16, 2014 at 10:04 a.m., we advised the repair facility that CARS was unable to assist with the timing chain claim due to the failures being the result of a previous improper repair.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1 (h): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair” is not covered. The repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that a previous improper repair was the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle.

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.

As you can see from the above information, CARS was correct when we denied assistance with the June 10, 2014 timing chain claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle due to the failures being the result of a previous improper repair. Therefore, based on the repair facility’s findings that an improper repair caused the failures to the customer’s vehicle, we stand behind our original decision and are unable to offer any assistance with the repair.

The customer states in his consumer complaint that CARS refused to pay for the repairs to his vehicle because of an “unauthorized rebuild”. As you can see from the above paragraphs that is not the case; we were unable to assist with the repair due to an improper previous repair pursuant to the terms and conditions of his service contract.

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statements regarding our refusal to pay the June 10, 2014 timing chain claim made on behalf of his vehicle. 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. Please be further advised that 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:

Review: Auto warranty provider C.A.R.S. Protection Plus refused payment on a very legitimate $3,280 claim for a front differential problem on my 2008 [redacted], which was covered under the $2500 "Ultimate Plus" package (http://carsprotectionplus.com/coverages/coverage-comparison).I clearly heard my vehicle making a roaring like noise for months, which did not effect performance. I assumed it was a tire noise. When I took it to into the shop to investigate a leak found in my garage, we found that it was leaking from the pinion seal/differential. Now CARS is telling me that the seal went bad first, so it's not covered. This is a chicken or egg argument. There is no way that CARS can prove that the seal went first and the facts point the seal going out as a result of bad bearings (thus the noise), not allowing the seal to flex and thus causing the seals failure, and the subsequent seal leak. I've contacted several mechanics (including dealers) to ask their opinion and they concur. It looks like CARS is clearly avoiding payment on this repair, when they should side with a customer that has purchased two $2500 CARS warranties over the past few years. The claim was handled by [redacted] and Mr. [redacted], who runs claims. [redacted] made us go through an expensive diagnostic process (after hearing it was the pinion seal leaking). If he was going to deny the claim, he shouldnt have made us spend the large amount of money on diagnostic problems. They were issued an injunction by a court in Michigan for mandating expensive tear down and diagnostics [redacted])I am requested full reimbursement for my claim and if it is not successful taking this route, I will go through the Texas Attorney General (and possibly the Dept of Insurance, given that they are backed by an insurance company - they are not self-insured as they were in the past) and the FTC.Desired Settlement: I want C.A.R.S. Protection Plus to back up their warranty coverage and pay for this repair.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 16, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 19, 2011, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle from [redacted] and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 75,329 miles on the odometer. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Limited Warranty (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). On February 1, 2012, CARS accepted with payment and approved the customer’s service contract (the attached “Service Contract”).

On September 6, 2013, at 2:48 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 front differential. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We explained to [redacted] that we needed a cause of failure and an estimate for the repair in order to process the claim and he should obtain permission from the customer to tear down the vehicle to the point of failure. Later, that same day, [redacted] called and advised us that he wanted us to authorize a complete front differential. We again explained to [redacted] that we needed a cause of failure to move forward with the claim.

On September 10, 2013 at 11:12 a.m., [redacted] advised us that the all the bearings and the ring and pinion were pitted causing the pinion seal to leak. [redacted] further advised that the leak from the pinion was the cause of all the failures to the customer’s vehicle; however, the fluid was not extremely low. After the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer’s vehicle was necessary to determine the exact cause of failure and extent of damage. We advised the repair facility of the independent inspection and explained that they should have all the parts in question ready for inspection by the independent inspector.

The independent inspection occurred on September 11, 2013. The independent inspector was not able to inspect the old pinion seal because the repair facility had disposed of it. The independent inspector opined from his inspection of the customer’s vehicle that the surface rusting, pitting, and rust colored fluid to all front differential components were consistent with water intrusion to the front differential due to a failed pinion seal. In addition, continued operation of the vehicle resulted in extensive damage to the internal bearings and gears.

On September 11, 2013 at 3:36 p.m., we advised [redacted] that the seal was not available to be inspected. We explained that the pinion bearing had no play and rust was found on the internal parts of the front differential; therefore, no components other than the seal could have caused the failure to the customer’s vehicle. Later that day, we advised the customer of the independent inspector’s findings.

On September 13, 2013 at 2:35 p.m., in a recorded telephone call the customer advised us that he heard a “roaring” noise in the rear differential for a while, but he did not think anything of it since the vehicle was driving normally. We explained that the noise was indicative of a mechanical issue and should have been checked by a repair facility whether the vehicle was driving normally or

not.

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: “damage that results from improperly maintaining or failing to maintain the vehicle;” and “The vehicle owner is responsible for properly maintaining the vehicle in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.” As stated above in a recorded conversation on September 13, 2013, we were advised by the customer that he heard a “roaring” noise in the front differential; however, continued to drive the vehicle. If the customer would have taken the vehicle to a repair facility when he began to hear the noise to have the issue addressed, the extensive failures that occurred to the front differential would have been avoided pursuant to the independent inspector’s findings.

The customer’s service contract also clearly states under the terms and conditions: “Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.” The repair facility chosen by the customer and the independent inspector advised us that the damage to the front differential was caused by a “fluid leak from the pinion seal.” Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract fluid leaks and the damage caused by them are not covered.

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.

Consumer

Response:

As the attached letter from [redacted] Automotive details (and the original invoice sent to CARS) summarizes my response.

CARS has taken the position that the pinion seal was not a covered item under the warranty’s contract, and that since they felt as though the seal was reason for the failure, they were not responsible to cover any of the repairs. If they really meant this, why wouldn't they initially tell the mechanics that the seal isn't covered -- given that [redacted] spoke it detail about it with [redacted] and even included it in the original repair order sent to CARS on 9/10 (attached)? The answer is that he planned to use that as an excuse for denying an expensive claim that should be covered. CARS was creating a loop hole that they could exploit to deny the claim.

In fact, [redacted] from [redacted] mentioned the leaking seal to [redacted] several times, and included it on the estimate that he had sent over to him. Second, [redacted] had said that they believed that there was no play in the pinion bearing after seeing it on the original repair order (attached and highlighted on page 1). Any reputable auto mechanic out there knows that there is absolutely no way to check the pinion bearing for play after the bearing has been removed from the vehicle. So at this point, [redacted] and CARS were calling Richie, and his ASE L1 master technician both liars, over something they would have had no way of seeing or proving. The third thing was that there is no way of knowing (without a shadow of a doubt), one way or the other, if the seal leaked first causing the bearing to fail, or if the bearing failed first causing the seal to fail. Especially after the parts are off of the vehicle and loose on a work bench. This was explained to [redacted] that this made no sense at all to to either [redacted] or the ASE L1 master mechanic. [redacted] then called me to let me know what CARS, the warranty company, had said.

[redacted] told both myself and [redacted] that the contract stated that the differential gears and bearings are covered items, but that any seals or gaskets are not, and that if the damage is caused by a non-covered item, then they would not responsible for the repairs. It is obvious by CARS' position on this issue that their intent was to set up a contract that would create a “loop hole”, that would allow CARS, the warranty company, to never have to cover a claim that involved a leaking seal or gasket, because there is absolutely no way to prove whether the leak was the original cause of the failure or not. They can just say that the seal was the original cause. Even though there is no proof one way or the other (chicken or the egg argument).

At this point in the process, I told [redacted] that I need to get back vehicle fixed due to CARS position and the creation of this loop hole. Not only did it cost me more than $3k in repairs, but also more than $500 in car rentals.

As someone who has paid for the highest level warranty from CARS (which cost me approx $2500), I would expect them to honor their contract with me and not defraud me of my compensation.

I have attached a personal letter from [redacted] at [redacted] detailing all of these events. I have also included the original work order that was sent to CARS.

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

CARS continues to ignore the actual issue at hand, which is, what was the original cause of failure? The proofs that their attorney provides actually work against them as it is impossible to tell what failed first -- the pinion bearing (as we opine) or the pinion seal, as they suggest. They do this to exploit the "loophole" in their extended warranty contract. They (and all master automobile technicians) know that the vast majority seals and gaskets will eventually leak over time and miles driven. They also know that often mechanical breakdowns happen to internal components on a vehicle that cause a gasket or seal to leak. THEY ALSO KNOW THAT IT IS USUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHETHER ANY LEAK ON A VEHICLE FROM ANY COMPONENT IS CAUSED BY AN INTERNAL FAILURE OR A FAULTY SEAL OR GASKET. Knowing this gives the extended warranty company a huge advantage over a consumer in being able to deny a claim. This is the loophole they have created to avoid paying for large repairs.

I have attached a rebuttal from the repair shop, which has four ASE Master Technicians on staff, all of which have analyzed this situation and agree with my position, which is that CARS should side with their customer's position that it is more likely that the pinion bearing first failed, which caused a breakdown in the pinion seal (due to flex/movement), thus requiring CARS to pay this claim. This is proven by the noise (the roar), which was present without any other symptoms (like leaks), which was reported to the shop.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like to speak to the shop directly.

Best regards,

CARS Customer

Consumer

Response:

I am willing to accept CARS offer if they also include the rental car fees for the same period to fix the problem.

Regards,

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 30, 2013 enclosing the customer’s response.

As stated in our previous response of October 18, 2013, the independent inspection on the customer’s vehicle was performed by an ASE Master Certified Inspector who provided us with clear and concise information that revealed the damage to the customer’s vehicle was caused by failure of the pinion seal and continued operation.

As stated directly from the independent inspection report completed by an ASE Master Certified Inspector from Centro advised the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle was: “Surface rusting, pitting, and rust colored fluid to all front differential components were consistent with water intrusion to the front differential due to a failed pinion seal. Continued operation resulted in extensive damage to the internal bearings and gears.”

In the customer’s original complaint and subsequent rebuttals, the customer is fixated on the pinion seal and has failed to address that on September 13, 2013 at 2:35 p.m., in a recorded telephone call the customer advised us that he heard a “roaring” noise in the rear differential for a while, but the customer did not think anything of it since the vehicle was driving normally. The customer also stated the same in the September 13, 2013 consumer complaint that the customer filed with the Revdex.com. If the customer would have taken the vehicle to a repair facility when he began to hear the noise to have the issue addressed, the extensive failures that occurred to the front differential would have been avoided pursuant to the independent ASE Master Certified Inspector’s findings.

After a management review of the customer’s claim, CARS stands behind its original decision not to assist with the front differential claim because by his own admission, the customer heard a roaring noise from his vehicle and continued to operate his vehicle in this condition causing extensive failures to his vehicle.

However, our claim manager reviewed the additional report and in a goodwill gesture CARS is willing to pay $642.60 towards the pinion bearing portion of the claim only. CARS will pay $135.00 towards the cost a pinion bearing kit. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 5.4 hours to complete and the repair facility stated upon opening the claim that their labor rate was $94.00 per hour. Therefore, the total amount allowed for labor is $507.60. The total amount we can authorize for the claim is $642.60 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. Please forward this to the customer and if he is agreeable to the payment $642.60, CARS will prepare a General Release for the customer’s execution.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 17, 2013 enclosing the additional response from the repair facility.

The repair facility states in their letter that during their September 6, 2013 telephone call with our claim adjustor that they could not tell which failed first the bearing or the seal: therefore, it WAS appropriate and necessary for us to have asked for the tear down of the customer’s vehicle to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.. We would like to point out here we were not requiring unnecessary tear down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle. This would also ensure that the customer’s vehicle would be properly repaired the first time. It was clear to the claims adjustor that the repair facility did not want to perform the teardown and diagnosis. Instead, the repair facility wanted to replace the pinion bearing and the front differential without determining if they were the cause of failure.

The repair facility also states in their letter that we asked for an estimate. According to our records at that stage of the claim’s process, our claims adjuster had not yet mentioned any parts that would not be covered. During the processing of claims, CARS routinely asks repair facilities for estimates on repairs to process the claim. This is not an unusual or unreasonable request for CARS to make of the repair facility considering that if a covered component has failed, CARS would be assisting with the cost of the repair.

In addition, the repair facility also stated several times that we did not tell them that the seal was not covered under the service contract. 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: “OTHER ITEMS NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.” Please be advised pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, fluid leaks and the damage caused by them are not covered. The customer signed the service contract and by the customer’s signature, the customer acknowledged that the customer was aware of the coverage that was provided for fluid leaks and damage from fluid leaks.

CARS determined an independent inspection was necessary based on the information provided by the repair facility to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle not for price of the repair. We would like to point out here that, CARS pays for the independent inspection to be done by a third party. We have third party independent inspections performed when the cause of failure and the extent of damage is in question. Furthermore, we would like to point out here that CARS uses [redacted] for our independent inspections and [redacted] inspectors are ASE Master Certified Inspectors.

Review: I took my2005 chevy 1500 4wd. pickup to [redacted] garage on or approx.oct5 the mech had called me and told me what was wrong with my front end icalled Carsprotectionplus I was told that the mech. would have to call them to submit a claim so he did. The mech.called me back and and said he talked to a man named Brian. Brian kept telling the Mech. he wasnt giving him the proper diognostects of the problem with the parts when he tried to over and over it wasent good enough he even asked Brian what more did he want him to send him the old parts Brian declined and kept saying over and over aproper Diog. The mech. called me and said he didnt want to really want to do it anymore he had to much time in it.so I called brain being a mech.myself for 28 years whatever myself or the mech.told Brian it wasnt good enough he still refuses to honor the claim I paid 1500 dollars for this insurance I have nobody to help me becauce I cant afford an attorneyDesired Settlement: Pay for repairs or refund me for my policy .

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 CHEVY 1500 VIN (Last 8): 51329086 OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On June 5, 2014, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on June 6, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract"). On October 8, 2015 at 1:41 p.m., a mechanical claim was opened by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle. The October 8, 2015 claim is the reason for the customer's complaint. CARS management has reviewed the mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer. At this time, CARS is willing to pay the total amount of $937.43, which is the repair facility's cost to repair the customer’s vehicle. Attached please find a copy of the repair facility's invoice for the repair. CARS has also waived the $100.00 deductible. Upon CARS receipt of the final invoice indicating that the repairs are completed and the repair facility has issued a warranty on parts and labor, CARS will pay the claim in the amount of $937.43. I hope that by CARS actions in covering the complete repairs on the customer's vehicle, he finds that CARS' response is satisfactory and the Revdex.com closes this complaint as resolved. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel