C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Review: I filed a claim for a transmission issue, the claim was received by C.A.R.S Protection Plus once they figured out they were liable for the claim, they choose to void my warranty because the car didn't have the original stock rims but instead 20 inch BMW rims that were already on the car when the vehicle was purchased. BMW does give you options to update rims on car when the car is first purchased at the dealership, which would make them stock rims. Then a C.A.R.S representative proceeded to say that I would be refunded for my warranty but not the full amount because I was covered for 7 months, so that 7 months of coverage would be deducted. That doesn't make sense if your voiding a warranty that you state I should have never had.Desired Settlement: I would like for C.A.R.S to honor they warranty, I bought the C.A.R with the 20 inch BMW rims on it and was sold a warranty with the 20 inch rims on it, but they looking for ways to avoid payment typical for this company as I have read up on them.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 22, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On March 7, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (12 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on March 14, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On August 22, 2013 at 4:06 p.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically issues with the transmission pan gasket, power engine pan gasket, cool valley pan leak thermostat temperature sensor and the engine light was on. During that telephone conversation, the repair facility stated that they were just checking on coverage and stated that they would call us back after they spoke with the customer. After thirty (30) days with no contact, CARS cancelled and closed the claim.

On October 21, 2013 at 10:34 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the transmission. During the processing of the claim, we were advised by the repair facility in a recorded telephone call that the customer’s vehicle had oversize tires. The repair facility also provided us with an estimate which clearly states that the vehicle had oversize tires. See copy of the invoice attached.

On October 21, 2013, at 3:19 p.m., we advised the repair facility that based upon the oversize tires on the customer’s vehicle, the contract would be void and we would offer a prorated refund of the amount we received from the selling dealer for the customer’s vehicle.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature, the customer acknowledged that the customer read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. The service contract clearly states at 2. (f)(d): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: “Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the limited warranty” and “We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS.” In addition, at (v): “C.A.R.S. reserves the

Review: purchased a extended car warranty from cars protection plus. the contract states the parts which are covered. a car starter is stated as being covered by the plan. the contract tells how the parts are covered and labor up to 54 dollars per hour. The starter went up in my 2004 Volvo xc90. I had the truck towed to a auto shop, own expense. the auto shop did everything asked of them by cars protection plus. The cost was parts $249.32, labor $138.00 grand total $419.32. Here is my complaint, cars protection plus only paid about 11% of the bill which was $46.72. I would be better off saving the money spent on the 2 year unlimited miles contract with cars protection and used the money to help pay out of pocket. This company did nothing it advertised in the contract. from the looks of it I was lucky to get anything out of them.Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund for the contract which cars protection plus did not honor or cover at least 75% of my repair and honor any future claims as written in the contract with similar results in coverage.

Business

Response:

January 27, 2016 VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2004 VOLVO XC90 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 26, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 2, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 31, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). On January 14, 2016 at 1:24 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing starter issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On January 14, 2016 at 1:37 p.m., after again reviewing our claim procedures with the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the starter for $86.72. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $60.00. 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 $46.72, and we could supply the part as stated above; however we were unable to assist with labor since the labor cost was less than the deductible or pay $46.72 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle. On January 18, 2016 CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $46.72 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. The claim was then closed. By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, as stated above the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $46.72 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the starter. The repair facility advised us that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer’s choice. Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. Upon further review of the customer's claim, CARS is willing to pay the remainder of the labor costs ($138.00 labor - $60.00 allowance) in the amount of $78.00 to the customer. However, in his consumer complaint the customer stated that he would like a full refund of the amount he paid for his Service Contract. The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at anytime by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid." CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the service contract. CARS is not directed by Maryland statute to issue a refund for the cancellation of the customer's Service Contract. If the customer currently has a lienholder and supplies CARS with the name and address of his lienholder; CARS will provide a General Release for the customer's signature. Upon receipt of the executed General Release, CARS will issue a check for a prorated refund less service fee and less claims paid for the amount CARS received from the selling dealer for the customer's Service Contract to the lienholder. CARS’ check to the lienholder will be in the amount of $390.03. CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers; therefore, CARS only receives a set price for each contract sold and any remaining monies owed to the customer are between the customer and the dealer. As stated above the customer has the option of having CARS pay an additional $78.00 towards the labor cost for the repair of his vehicle or a prorated refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer, which will be directly paid to the lienholder. The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 31, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted]General Counsel

Review: On 8/1/14 I purchased a Gray 2005 Jeep Cherokee from [redacted] for $7,495 + a CARS Protection Plus Warranty for $1,195. I put a down payment of $2400. On 8/3/14 Had to have road assistance come to my sons camp [redacted] to jump my vehicle. On 8/8/14 I had to have my car towed again from [redacted]. Had my car towed to [redacted]s auto and the mechanic stated there was a the short in the wires to the starter. They repaired it and the cost was $40.00. (PAID BY ME)On 8/15/14 I had to have it towed from my complex to [redacted]. Diagnosis: Timing chain cover gasket was bad and was leaking, Water Pump (bad & replaced). Cost to repair $385.03(Pd by me) + $171.12 (CARS) = $556.15 Total Cost10/9/14 Was driving my car out of parking lot on my way to work and car stopped in the middle of street. Had car towed to [redacted]Warranty company said that the engine had to be torn down to access and determined engine problem then me know if they would cover the repair. Engine had to be removed and disassembled. Finding: the crank shift Timing Gear Sprocket Key has broken off causing the Timing Chain not to turn and causing severe damage to the LT and RT cylinder heads and they recommend to replace ENGINE.TOTAL COST $3,485.50 (Parts and labor)After reading through the C.A.R.S Protection Plus warranty I am convinced that the dealer and the warranty company have conspired to work together to do as little with regards to repairs. There was a clear breakdown of Covered Components under the Engine/Fuel System. As a consumer I have been preyed upon by both the warranty company and the car dealership and am left with a vehicle that does not work , I still have to make payments on the vehicle, warranty was financed and is being paid as a part of the monthly car payment, and the repair facility has to be paid.Desired Settlement: As a resolve I would like to have the CARS Protection Plus warranty pay the cost of these repairs. And be given a rental car which was supposed to be covered under the warranty when repairs were warranted, totally covered by this warranty until the repairs are done. The repair facility said that it could be anywhere from one to two weeks before my car is done with repairs. I have been without a vehicle since 10/9/14.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 17, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. CARS previously responded directly to the customer. Attached please find CARS' response. We stand by our original decision and are unable to offer any further assistance with the October 9, 2014 engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

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

____________________________________________________

Review: My policy on my 2008 VW BEETLE, was canceled because the credit card on file declined payment for renewal. I received notification of this in a letter dated 8/18/2015.

I contacted CARS immediately on Monday, 8/23/2015 to discuss this issue. I informed Allison that the reason was due to the fraudulent use of my credit card and that I could offer proof of the fraud through my bank's Fraud Services Department. I was informed that I had no recourse per the contract I signed. I stated my dissatisfaction and was transferred to Tiffany and subsequently to Rick.

I remain dissatisfied because I was refused contact with an owner, VP, or President to discuss my issue with their unfair handling of my specific issue. I was refused this and Rick refused to take a message for callback by any of the above. I feel this business practice is a very poor way to handle customers. I want their owner to know how their employees are doing business for them.

At this time I am without the coverage I feel I need.Desired Settlement: Contact from owner or President of company plus possible reinstatement of the policy.

Business

Response:

COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2008 VW BEETLE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 24, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: After a management review of the customer’s consumer complaint, CARS has provided the customer with the name of a dealer near her residence who will provide an inspection to her vehicle at no cost to her. After the inspection of the customer's vehicle, the selling dealer will submit an Independent Service Contract (Recurring Payment) application and payment authorization form with one (1) month payment provided by the customer to CARS. CARS considers this matter to be resolved. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Consumer

Response:

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

Review: On March 14th my car over heated due to mechanical problems. The vehicle was towed within an hour to a local mechanic shop. The issue with the vehicle was the radiator had pretty much gone out and needed to be replace along with a thermostat and seal. Being that this was covered under warranty I called Protection Plus for assistance in the matter. After to speaking with the claims department about parts we agreed on time frame of completion of work, I was told parts would arrive 72 hours. But this didn't happen, after returning from a family vacation I decided to call down to the shop and check on the status of the vehicle. The mechanic relayed the message that no parts have shown up and they have tried call multiply times and still no answer no call back. I called Protection Plus that same day March 21st to see exactly what is going on. After speaking to two different people in the matter somehow the parts were not ordered the same day. The mechanic called me back relayed the message that the parts should be here by March 23rd at the latest and we should have your car ready by then. From March 14th to March 17th I had a rental expensive of $137.00. Protection Plus said nope we wont cover due to your car is not 8 hours of labor. Understood was the response. But after having to wait and then having to acquire another rental expense $162 due them not processing the parts claim I feel that is unacceptable. But still they won't cover that rental. After several days the car is complete and in my hands. *Important* After driving my car a few days I notice my hot and cool needle jump up down up and down. Mind you this car was supposed to be fixed and ready to roll. After letting that car sit a few days I checked if any fluids were leaking and look and behold coolant is slowly dripping. So I take the car to another mechanic shop and I have the car serviced. As the mechanic is looking around he ask me have I replaced the radiator? I reply yes and he asked if I did it or someone else? I replied I take my cars to the professionals. He replied ok and told me to come check this out. As he flashes his light on the radiator fan he shows me where a crack has been previously sealed up to keep the liquids from draining faster. He stats whoever took this off had to of cracked the reservoir tank. So now that needs to be replaced, after talking to the Protection Plus fro assistance they stated we cant help you its the mechanics fault expense will come out of your pocket. Once again replied understood. Took the loss ask the new shop to replace it. after ordering the $300 part, the mechanic decides to check the pressure and look and behold my water pump needs to be replace $376 job. So the mechanic states that there is a high percentage chance that your timing belt will need to be replace. Im not car savy so I tell them to talk to Protection plus and see what they say. After Protection Plus and the mechanic speak it is stated and that they both agree that this needs to be done, but Protection Plus will not cover this job which now went from $376 to $832 plus $175 for the rental im currently in now. But wait that's not it, here is the kick me while your down part. After personally reviewing my warranty contract all these parts are covered in this fabulous warranty contract. So I decide to call myself and see what exactly does my warranty cover. After speaking to the claims department it is stated that though we agree that the timing belt needs changing we don't accept claims based on recommendations. So I asked if my car breaks down three days from now because of timing belt then I am covered right? The claims department replied, No. since we have spoken about this claim currently we have added that the mechanic has recommended the timing belt to be changed. So later down the line if the car mechanically fails the claims will look back at the claim and see that the timing belt was recommended to be changed. In conclusion if my warranty covered car breaks down I have to pay for that out of pocket and another rental due to the fact the mechanic gave wise advice to get this done. All I want is for you to cover what the contract stats. No where on the contract does it state anything about if recommended we don't fix, warranties are in place for things like this but the business you guys are conducting are starting to fall under the line of bad business practice.Desired Settlement: Repair the vehicle like the contract states, im taking the lose with the rental that your not covering at least you can do is get an old vet his car back the road nothing less nothing more.

Business

Response:

April 12, 2016VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2001 LEXUS GS300 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I received your letter dated April 8, 2016, enclosing the customer’s concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on February 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on March 24, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).FIRST CLAIM: On March 15, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing radiator, radiator cap and thermostat issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.During the processing of the customer's claim, on March 15, 2016 at 3:23 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the customer’s claim as follows: We could supply the radiator for $83.93 and the thermostat for $7.90. CARS could also assist with the coolant needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $28.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.7 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $189.00. 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 $117.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $89.00 towards labor or pay $117.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would telephone us back with your decision.On March 15, 2016 at 4:05 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted CARS to supply the parts to the repair facility for the repair of his vehicle. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair and an estimated delivery date for the supplied parts of March 18, 2016. Since the repair facility telephoned CARS after 4:00 p.m., CARS was not able to place an order for the supplied parts until March 16, 2016.On March 21, 2016 at 10:21 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the supplied parts had not arrived at the repair facility. CARS advised the customer that our supplier would telephone the repair facility with an update on the arrival time of the supplied parts. As evidenced by the attached shipping and tracking information, the supplied parts arrived at the repair facility on March 21, 2016 at 1:29 p.m.On March 23, 2016, CARS paid the repair facility $117.00 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract for labor relating to the supplied radiator and thermostat. On April 11, 2015, CARS paid our parts supplier $131.83 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract for a radiator and thermostat. The claim was then closed.On April 6, 2016 at 9:35 a.m., the customer advised CARS that during an inspection of his vehicle, a repair facility advised him that the radiator fan was broken and the check engine light was displayed when the repair facility attempted to repair the radiator fan. The customer advised CARS that the repair facility that replaced his radiator damaged the fan because the fan was not like this prior to the replacement of the radiator. CARS advised the customer that the repair facility who previously replaced the radiator was responsible to repair/replace the radiator since they damaged the repair facility.SECOND CLAIM: On April 7, 2016 at 11:36 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.On April 7, 2016 at 11:55 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility with low coolant and a cracked expansion tank which is part of the fan assembly. The repair facility further advised that the customer told them that the expansion tank (fan assembly) was not covered by CARS due to the previous repair facility damaging the fan assembly during the radiator replacement. The repair facility recommended that the timing belt be replaced. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.During the processing of the customer's claim, on April 7, 2016 at 12:01 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the customer's claim as follows: We could supply the water pump for $54.79. CARS could also assist with the coolant needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $12.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $266.00. 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 $232.79, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $166.00 towards labor or pay $232.79 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.On April 7, 2016 at 4:24 p.m., CARS advised the customer that we could not assist with the replacement of the timing belt because it had not failed. The repair facility had recommended the timing belt be replaced as a maintenance item. We further advised that it was his responsibility to take care of all maintenance pertaining to his vehicle.By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of thehis service contract. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.”When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we 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. The customer chose to have the radiator and thermostat shipped to the repair facility. Here, CARS provided the repair facility with an estimated delivery date for the arrival of the supplied parts; however, we have no control over any shipping delays with the supplier or the carrier.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 1 (i): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair." Based on the information provided to CARS by the customer and the second repair facility, the repair facility that performed the repairs to the customer vehicle during the March 15, 2016 claim, damaged the expansion tank (radiator fan] during the repair of the customer’s vehicle. Therefore, the first repair facility is responsible for the replacement of the radiator fan pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract.The customer’s Service Contract also states under the Terms and Conditions at 2 (h) and 3 (g): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: You are responsible for properly maintain the vehicle in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and to protect against further damage caused by continued operation or damage from overheating." and "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: "If it is determined that a coveredcomponent has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S., an authorization number will be issued for the repair." Here, the repair facility recommended that the timing belt be replaced; however, the timing belt had not failed; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, the replacement of the timing belt would be considered maintenance and not covered under the customer's Service Contract.However, in a goodwill gesture, on April 8, 2016, CARS telephoned the repair facility and authorized an additional $25.00 for the April 7, 2016 mechanical claim, which was the amount we would pay our supplier for a timing belt.In his consumer complaint the customer states that he has incurred additional rental expense due to the radiator and thermostat arriving at the repair facility one (1] business day later than the estimated delivery date. The rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not beresponsible 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 components (radiator and thermostat] was 2.7 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any rental benefits. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS will issue the customer a check for $75.00 towards the cost of his rental expenses.In summary, the customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the teardown, filters, fluids, taxes, and the difference in labor rates.For the above reasons, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.JPM/jmmAttachment

Cars Protection Plus is by far the worst warranty company out there! My wife and I put a claim in for wheel bearings and every time we fax the receipts they claim they don't receive it?? We have been waiting over 2 weeks for the company to cut us a check! Every time I call a guy named Bryan who handled my claim tells me he is still waiting on the receipt, I've kept the fax confirmation and fax number they sent me and still can't get my check. Beware this company is a hassle to put a claim in, and LOVE to make excuses up when it comes time to pay for something! Even the garage who repaired my car had nothing but negative things to say. I mentioned to the dealership I would never buy a car from them again just based on the bad warranty they sold me, hopefully dealerships make the warranty company hold up to a better standard!

Beware. They say they are offering good coverage when its basically Junk they offer. They are actually making lots of money for owners because its simple, get as much money for coverage from car purchasers and offer junk parts in return. I had an issue where my car's alternator had to be replaced. I took it to shop. the alternator cost approximately $274. The adjuster told the shop that he looked around for the cheapest and found one in the junk yard for $140 which he will then take to the shop to have it put in the car. So all in all replacing an alternator with a bill of approx $439.84 plus taxes ends up with them only paying $124. So I end up paying 315.84 plus taxes. Now I could have opted to go the Junk yard part for my car which has my life in it to save $130. Go Figure. Please folks. when you buy a car, the dealers pressure you to sign up for the extended plan. Don't sign, wait till you read reviews and get more about company's background. Dealers usually give you 30 days free warranty. That is the time to looking into companies, customer reviews and decide whether its worth your time, money and haggle, remember, you pay upfront, they get the money. Service provided is another issue.

Review: I purchased a 2004 Cadillac SRX with a Warranty.

The vehicle had many issues which did not find out until about a year after the purchase.

I took it to the place I purchased it from an they could not fix it.

I took the car to the dealer to identify the what was causing the sounds that I was experiencing.

The dealer said the car had the following problems in excess of $6k to replace/repair:

LWR CONTROL ARMS , TRANSFER CASE , FT COVER LEAK , SEAT SWITCH , PASS REAR WHL BRG , STEER RACK BOOT TORN , TIE ROD , PWR STEER PRESSURE HOSE , HEADLIGHT , ALT BELT TENSIONER , REAR DIFF BUSH , REAR SWAY BAR BUSH

After numerous unanswered phone calls by myself and the dealer I finally called and asked for manager at the warranty company to respond to the dealer. It was not until 12/16/15 the adjuster called the dealer.

Problem is the adjuster told them that they will not authorize much of the covered issues.

They only agreed to:

a USED TRANS CASE 720.00 RF HUB 184.72 NON OEN PS HOSE 70.79 -33.00 FLUID

240.00 LABOR OM TRANS CASE NO TEAR DOWN- 1.1 HOUR(66.00)PS HOSE 1.7

102.00 TOTAL ASSIST 6.8 HOUR 408.00 LABOR PARTS AND FLUID 1008.51 CUST

PAY TAXES 1416.51 TOTAL ASSIST -100 DED 1316.51

the dealer can not warrant the work on USED parts. Further they say that the used transfer case is sealed so they can not tell if it good or not. If it is not good the warranty company will require it be opened up at my cost to replace it. Additionally are not authorizing fixing the engine oil leak, Steering Rack or Control Arms which are the more serious and safety issues that should be covered.Desired Settlement: Replacement of the Transfer Case with New or "Refurbished" Transfer case and fixing the engine oil leak, Steering Rack or Control Arms.

Business

Response:

December 18, 2015VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 CADILLAC SRX VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated December 17, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 15, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 23, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract two (2) mechanical claims have been opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.First Claim: On August 31, 2015 at 4:43 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing left window motor, center support bearings, driveshaft, rear axle bushings and air conditioning compressor issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On September 1, 2015 at 9:56 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left window motor for $168.00, the driveshaft for $400.00 and the air conditioner compressor for $295.00. CARS would also assist with fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $22.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 4.5 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $270.00. 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 $1,055.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $170.00 toward labor and $22.00 towards the cost of fluids or pay $1,055.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice.On September 4, 2015 at 1:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to use the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicle. CARS provided the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs on the customer's vehicle.Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, on September 8, 2015, CARS paid the repair facility $1,055.00 via credit card. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On November 23, 2015 at 4:21 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing lower control arms, transfer case, rear wheel bearing, steering rack boot, tie rod, power steering pressure hose, alternator belt tensioner, rear differential bushings and sway bar issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On December 1, 2015 at 9:22 a.m., the customer informed CARS that she was moving her vehicle to a repair facility that charged less for labor.On December 14, 2015 at 11:34 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of her claim. She advised CARS that she had not moved her vehicle from the repair facility that contacted CARS on November 23, 2015. CARS advised the customer that the repair facility must contact CARS with their findings in order for us to move forward with her claim. We further advised that the repair facility should have obtained her permission to tear-down the transfer case to the point of component failure. The customer advised CARS that the repair facility had completed the required tear-down and she would contact them.On December 16, 2015 at 11:59 a.m., the customer again telephoned CARS to check on the status of her claim. CARS again advised that we have not heard from the repair facility since November 23, 2015.On December 16, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., since CARS had not heard from the repair facility, CARS telephoned the repair facility to check on the status of the customer’s claim. The repair facility reviewed their findings with CARS. CARS requested that the repair facility send their findings to CARS for review.On December 16, 2015 at 4:05 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transfer case for $720.00, the right wheel bearing for $184.72 and the power steering hose for $70.79. CARS would also assist with fluids needed or the repair in the amount of $33.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 6.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $408.00. 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 $1,316.51, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $308.00 toward labor and $33.00 towards the cost of fluids or pay $1,316.51 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. CARS then advised the repair facility to call us back with the customer’s decision.On December 17, 2015 at 1032 a.m., a CARS claims manager reviewed the claim with the customer. The claims manager advised that according to the information CARS received from the repair facility the inner tie rod, not the rack had failed. The customer advised that was not what was told to her by the repair facility manager. The customer requested that the repair facility manager be included on the telephone call and CARS agreed. The repair facility manager advised that the boot was torn and the inner tie rod has failed. Our claim manager advised that both of these parts can be replaced/repaired without replacing the rack. The repair facility manager agreed and then advised that he did not know if the rack had failed. Our claim manager suggested that the repair facility could fill the rack with fluid to see if any abnormal noise or hesitation occurred. The repair facility manager agreed that this could be done. CARS claim manager advised that the control arms are not covered components under the customer's Service Contract. The repair facility manager agreed and advised the customer he would talk to her later.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, as stated above the customer has the option of taking the cash allowance of $1,316.51 towards the repair of her choice or having CARS supply the parts.It is stated in the customer's Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless offailure." Here, the control arms, inner tie rod, boot and front timing cover are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract. Therefore, it is the customer is responsibility to repair/replace these parts.We would like to point out here that the repair facility has not advised CARS that the rack has failed. The inner tie rod and boot have failed on the customer's vehicle and these parts can be purchased and replaced separately from the rack. Therefore, CARS is unable to assist with the replacement of the rack.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph l(r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Here, the front timing cover leaking oil is not covered under the customer’s Service Contract.Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the inner tie rod and boot had failed and these are separate components because they can be replaced independently from the rack.CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any further assistance with the November 23, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. If the repair facility has any further information to provide CARS, the repair facility should contact CARS directly.The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 23, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmm

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,

Review: C.A.R.S Protection Plus Service Contract is fighting my macanic on prices for parts....they want to use used parts to fix my truck when I paid for an extended warranty. Paying the amount I paid for the warranty I should not have to wait for 5 plus days for them to send parts to get my truck fixed. They were also very rude to me when I talked to them multiple times on the phone and are not willing to work with anyone.Desired Settlement: Finish the job in a timely manner so that I can have my truck for work

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 20, 2013 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer's Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on November 25, 2013 (See attached "Service Contract"). The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through November 25, 2015. Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract only one (1) claim was called in by a repair facility on January 28, 2015 at 2:41 p.m., advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing two (2) front wheel bearings, rack & pinion, power steering pump, blower motor resister and engine issues. On that same date at 2:53 p.m., a claims adjuster contacted the repair facility. During that telephone call the repair facility also stated that among the issues with the vehicle, the engine was running rough and there was an engine leak. We then explained our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility also advising that the vehicle would need to be torn down to the point of component failure to determine the exact cause of failure and extent of damage. The repair facility was to obtain the customer's approval for the teardown. On that same date at 4:09 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer inquiring about the teardown procedures. During the telephone call the customer expressed her unhappiness with the teardown and also stated that she was aware the vehicle needed a new engine. On January 29, 2015 at 3:29 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer refused teardown of the engine. We then asked the repair facility to provide us with its cause of failure and estimate for repair of the other components in need of repair. We also requested that the repair facility state on their estimate that the customer was refusing teardown of the engine relating to the engine noise.After receiving the repair facility's cause of failure and estimate for repair (which also included replacement of the upper control arm assembly, which was not mentioned before), CARS contacted the repair facility on January 30, 2015 at 9:14 a.m., to review the estimate. The invoice also included the customer's refusal for the teardown of the engine. We then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the two (2) front hub assemblies for $145.14, a rack and pinion for $179.84 and a power steering pump for $36.45. We would also allow $8.00 for fluids. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 6.5 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $390.00. 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 $659.43. CARS could supply the components as stated above and pay $290.00 towards labor or pay $659.43 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then reviewed the upper control arm assembly, which were not mentioned previously by the repair facility. We then asked the repair facility for the ball joints measurements and to call us back with their findings. On that same date at 11:01 a.m., our claims manager received a telephone call from the customer who was very argumentative regarding the claim. Our claims manager went over the customer's options as stated above, to either ship the parts or use the money allowance. The customer wanted to know why we have to supply used parts. Our claims manager explained that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions, CARS has the option to provide new or used parts. In the alternative, the customer could take our money allowance for the repairs. Our claims manager also explained to the customer that since she refused to teardown the engine to determine the cause of failure, if there was any further damage to the engine due to continued operation, she would be solely responsible for the repair. On January 30, 2015 at 11:11 a.m., our claims adjuster returned a telephone call to the repair facility. The repair facility explained that they were mistaken about the upper control arm assembly and now the vehicle only needed the lower ball joint. We requested the repair facility to send an updated estimate. See attached estimate. On January 30, 2015 at 2:20 p.m., after reviewing the new estimate, our claims adjuster contacted the repair facility and went over the new total amounts we could offer for the claim as follows: We could supply the two (2) front hub assemblies for $145.14, a rack and pinion for $179.84, power steering pump for $36.45 and lower ball joint for $22.99. We would also include an additional $12.00 for the rack and pinion and $8.00 for fluids. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 7.4 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $444.00. 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 $747.42. CARS could supply the components as stated above and pay $344.00 towards labor or pay $747.42 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that the customer would take the allowance for the claim in the total amount of $747.42. An authorization number was then given to the repair facility for the claim. Once CARS receives the final invoice advising that the repairs are completed we will pay the repair facility the amount of $747.42 pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either ship the replacement parts offered by CARS or take the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to take the money allowance for the repair; therefore, the time frame issue mentioned in the customer's complaint to supply the parts are a nonissue. With regard to the customer’s engine issues, the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and teardown charges. Since the customer refused teardown or repair of the engine, should further damage occur due to continued operation, it would be the sole responsibility of the customer to repair as previously stated. CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facilities and customers, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. As you can see from the claim information, the repair facility originally provided CARS with erroneous information regarding the upper control arm assembly, which they later informed us was lower ball joint failure. CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all-inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper] coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the teardown, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. Accordingly, CARS has timely fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions the customer’s Service Contract regarding the customer's January 28, 2015 claim. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] My complaint is that I paidvso Mich for the extended warranty and yet t have multiple out of pocket expenses..... The auto repair shot says it needs a new engine... Yet C.A.R.S wants the engine tore down at my expense. I'm already paying $500 out on things they do not cover. I'd an auto repair place says it needs a new engine they should fix it and make the customer happy. Even a used engine which they would pur in it would be fine. A mechanic does what he does for a living cause he is good at his job. So if he says it needs a new engine, it does. U shouldn't have to pay for a tare down.

Regards,

Racheal Sopoliga

Review: I purchased a vehicle at [redacted] Autos in [redacted] Dec. 30, 2014. The dealer included a car protection plus 3 month warranty for repairs. The Check Engine light soon came on the vehicle shortly after I purchased the car. I took the car back to [redacted] Auto for repairs and they claimed they had their mechanic repair it. The day I picked the truck (2004 GMC Yukon) back up the check engine light came on again. I then took the truck to my personal mechanic to have it checked out at [redacted] in [redacted] on 1/23/2014. Before I took it to [redacted] I received the warranty card in the mail and then I called Cars Protection Plus 1-800# and spoke with a claims rep and told them the problems I was having with the car, they told me I had a choice of having my own mechanic open a claim and going thru them for the repair or I could have the mechanic do the repairs first and pay for the cost and then Car Plus Protection would reimburse me for 50 % of the labor up to $60 per hour and 50 % of the parts when I sent them my proof of repairs. I went to pick the car up on Sat. 1/24/15 the bill was a total of $895.58 for parts and labor. I paid the repair bill and got a receipt. On 1/26/2015. I phoned Car Protection Plus and the representative then told me the repairs were done without their authorization and none of my expenses would be reimbursed to me and I only had the option to cancel the warranty in writing to receive a partial refund of the warranty cancellation. I feel that I have been misled, by Cars Protection Plus and this is a bad business practice and that I have been ripped off.Desired Settlement: I feel Cars Protection Plus should honor the warranty and review my receipt and return to me 50% of the Labor and 50 % of the parts expense I paid upfront to have the car repaired at [redacted]. I feel, if I have a warranty on a vehicle and if I go to the good faith of paying for the repairs upfront at a mechanic that I can trust then Cars Protection Plus should honor that and reimburse me. My mechanic told me that I would probably have an issue getting the warranty company to pay for any of the repairs and that more than likely they would try to get out of paying their portion. They use aftermarket or used parts that can cause further damage to the vehicle, since it is my vehicle, I should have the choice as to where I get the car repaired. Please help me resolve this problem with Car Protection Plus. I just bought a vehicle and less than 30 days of owning it I have had to spend over $800 in repair cost. I haven't even made the first car payment yet.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2004 GMC YUKON VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I received your letter dated January 26, 2015, enclosing the customer’s concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on December 30, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on January 2, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). On January 21, 2015 at 10:06 a.m., the customer advised a CARS customer service representative in a recorded telephone call that the check engine light came on during the same date of vehicle purchase, December 30, 2014. Our customer service representative then reviewed the customer's service coverage and our claim procedures with him. On January 26, 2015 at 9:53 a.m., the customer advised a CARS' customer service representative that he had his vehicle repaired and that he was advised on that he would be entitled to a reimbursement. We advised the customer that is not our claim procedure and that we would not have given him that information. We then reviewed our claim procedure with him several times. The customer was then transferred to the refund department. On January 26, 2015 at 10:01 a.m., the customer advised a representative in our refund department that he believed he was told on January 23, 2015 that he could have his vehicle repaired, pay for it out of pocket and CARS would reimburse him for 50% of his expenses. He was again advised that this is not our policy. The customer advised CARS that he would like to be reimbursed for his Service Contract. CARS then advised the customer that he was eligible for a prorated refund. The customer requested to speak to a manager. The manager was not available to speak to the customer and the customer refused to leave a voicemail. The above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issues prior to CARS' receiving the customer's Revdex.com consumer complaint. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer’s service contract. By his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract: "Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, open to the public during normal business hours and capable to: perform tear-down to the point of component failure, determine the cause and extent of damage, and rebuild the component if CARS deems necessary. The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete. CARS reserves the right to have the repairs performed at a location other than the one you have selected.” In addition, it is also stated at Paragraph 3(b): “The repair facility MUST call CARS at 888-335-6838 to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun.” A CARS' customer service representative went over CARS' claims procedures during a January 21, 2015 telephone call. The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in his service contract or on his identification card to properly open a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The service contract states at Paragraph 1(c): “1. COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun” and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, Your signature, repair facility's warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility's identifying information.” The identification card also clearly states: "CARS Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices.” By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed to the customer's vehicle. At no time did any representative of CARS advise the customer to have his vehicle repaired and that we would reimburse him afterwards for his expenses. All telephone calls between our customer service representatives and customers are documented by date, time and summary of the conversation. Pursuant to [redacted] state statutes the customer is entitled to cancel his service contract with CARS and receive a prorated refund, less a 10% service fee, for the amount of money received from the selling dealer for the cost of the customer's service contract. Please advise if the customer is agreeable to a cancellation and refund. If so, the refund we will be mailed to the selling dealer who would then issue a check to the customer. By issuing the refund check to the dealer, it would enable them to also refund the customer any profit they received as well. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below

I was told by Cars Protection Plus Representative that if I chose to have my car repaired I would be reimbursed for 50% of the Labor and 50 % of approved parts. I needed to get my vehicle out of the body shop so I would have a car to drive over the weekend since I was in a bind, therefore I paid the body shop thinking in good faith I would be able to use the warranty to recover part of my expenses. I paid $895 towards the repair. The Cars Protection Plus Warranty is misleading and it was implied to me by both Cars Protection Plus Warranty and the dealer I would only be responsible for 50 % of repairs and labor. The way the warranty is written, Cars Protection Plus can easily get out of doing any repairs to the vehicle, it does not specifically state that O2 Sensors is not a covered part, it list other parts that are covered and parts that are not and then gives them the opportunity to say any part not listed is not covered. I have decided to refer this to the [redacted] Attorney General Office of Consumer Protection to file a complaint. ]

Regards,

Review: I paid 2200 for the ultimate plus warranty. That warranty clearly states that it covers calipers. I am at a shop and they requested the calipers be repaired and covered under the warranty. I contacted cars extended warranty company and they explained that they were not covered only because of the damage was a result of corrosion of the part. Believe this is deceptive advertising and I would like this company to be investigated for this issue.I asked the young lady I spoke to named [redacted] for the contact information for the legal department after I explained to her that I was going to file a complaint with the Revdex.com and she hung up on meDesired Settlement: I would like the cost of the warranty that I paid for reimbursed in full or I would like the over 1100 quote to replace all of the calipers paid for in full by this warranty company as I do believe that they have acted in bad faith with their deceptive

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 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 July 15, 2011. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Limited Warranty (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer's service contract on August 4, 2011. (See attached Service Contract).

On September 2, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically with the vehicle’s front and rear brake calipers. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle stated that "both rear slide pins were rusted solid, and the front pistons would not work properly due to corrosion buildup." As a result of rusting and corrosion, we advised the repair facility that we were not able to assist with the repair of the customer's front and rear calipers pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer's signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. It is stated at under terms and conditions: “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage from conditions of the environment, including rust and corrosion" and "Damage resulting from improperly maintaining or failing to maintain the vehicle." Here, as evidenced in the above paragraphs, the repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that the failures to the customer's vehicle were due to rust and corrosion.

Each and every CARS customer has a duty to maintain their vehicle (i.e. fluids, oil, hoses, brakes, etc.). Based upon the repair facility’s findings, the failures to the customer's vehicle were caused by the failure of the customer to maintain the vehicle.

Additionally, the customer has requested a refund for his service contract. The state of Texas does allow for a prorated refund of the customer's service contract, less any claims paid. CARS' service contracts are sold wholesale through the selling dealers. Therefore, based upon the amount of money CARS received from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract and since CARS has paid a previous claim in the amount of $792.00 in 2012; there is no refund available to the customer.

Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind its original decision and we are unable to assist with this claim and we are also unable to offer the customer any refund. Furthermore, CARS did not act in bad faith nor were our practices deceptive; CARS simply complied with the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

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

Review: I am contacting you regarding a warranty claim on a 2003 [redacted] Contract # [redacted].Per your claims adjuster, [redacted], This claim has been denied due to the [redacted] having sludge in the engine. I feel that this resolution is unacceptable. I feel that CARS Protection Plus is in Breach of Contract and I have requested that [redacted] would please forward in writing, the formal denial and a full explanation of the denial along with the contact information of the third party company that performed the inspection. Consumers such as myself, who act in good faith on a purchase of a warranty should not have to go through this level of stress. Although I did my due diligence regarding a post purchase inspection from a reputable vehicle inspector, getting a Carfax report and getting the oil changed, I am not sure what else could have been done to insure the vehicle is in good repair. My wife is without transportation and this has affected her ability to get to and from work . It is noted that your company has a very good rating with the B.B.B, but I also see that you have 151 complaints filed with them, 56 of which were filed in the last 12 months. I feel as though I must turn this over to a Consumer Law Counsel who specialize in Auto Fraud along with The State of Texas Attorney Generals Office. Respectfully,[redacted]Desired Settlement: I want the warranty coverage based on the contract.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 4, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. Please be advised that the person who submitted the consumer complaint is not the service contract holder; however, I respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 10, 2014. The odometer registered 132,650 miles at the time of purchase. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 12, 2014. (See attached Service Contract). Please be advised that the person who filed the consumer complaint is not the service contract holder.

On March 26, 2014 at 10:21 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the engine. The repair facility further advised that 133,575 miles registered on the odometer. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, the repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that the pick-up tube appeared to be restricted with sludge. Based on the information provided by the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection was needed on the customer’s vehicle to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle.

The independent inspection occurred on April 1, 2014. The independent inspector found that the engine oil pump had light scoring on the gears and the cover plate. There was heavy sludge in the cylinder heads and in the timing cover. The cam shafts were seized in the cylinder heads and the front head exhaust cam rear cap was cracked. The right head exhaust cam rear cap was cracked. The right head intake cam rear cap was melted and metal was leaking out from between the cam and cam cap. Both of the cams in the rear head had metal coming out from between the cam and the head. All 4 cam shafts were discolored from the lack of lubrication. The sludge in the head was dry and hard. There was carbon and metal in the oil pump pick up tube. There was heavy fine metal in the oil pan.

The independent inspector found the heavy sludge build up caused restriction in the oil system which resulted in a lack of lubrication causing damage to the cams and cylinder heads. The sludge accumulation resulted from long term lack of maintenance. The lack of lubrication to the engine and damage to the engine was in progress prior to the 925 miles that the customer had driven since purchasing the vehicle.

Review: I was told when I purchased this warranty that it covered all mechanical failures with the exception of standard wear and tear. I took my vehicle to [redacted], to find out was wrong. The mechanics name is [redacted], President owner of the company. It was diagnosed as needing an oil pump seperator and oil pump pick-up. Supposedly there was a service bulletin put out on this part. After his contact with the warranty company named above, he was told this was not covered. However, the warranty company did make him aware that if the engine blew up it would have been covered. If I have driven this car without that part working it would have blown up. The manual directed me what to do when the light came on. My complaint is rather then drive it and blow up the motor I used what I thought was proper judgement and had the vehicle towed for repair. The engine could be bad but they can"t run it without oil pressure. I tried to do what I thought would be right and also least expensive for the warranty company. I am not sure why they would tell me it would be better if the motor blew up because that would be covered. This repair is much less expensive and is not a normal wear and tear item so it should be covered. I have now been without my vehicle for 2 full months and all I've been told is they deny for repairs and it's not covered yet if I would have driven it under these conditions and blew the motor, then it ould be covered. This makes zero sense to me. I am just seeking resolution to this and was told the car was covered 100% mechanically when I purchased the warranty. The mechanic has talked with them on several occassions to no avail. The only reason I purchased this car was because the warranty was to take care of major mechanical issues. Now I am making payments on a vehicle that won"t even run. Please let me know your findings as everything I have told you is 100% correct and I feel they are taking advantage of me. Thank you!Desired Settlement: I simply want it repaired. As stated by the mechanic, the motor could already be bad but you cannot run it to find out without having oil pressure. As previously stated, I was told all mechanical issues were covered under this warranty when I purchased it.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 29, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on April 2, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

On January 17, 2014 at 4:16 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the oil separator. The repair facility further advised that the oil separator was under the intake manifold. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

On January 20, 2014 at 9:39 a.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, the failure was not an internally lubricated part; therefore, no coverage was available. The oil separator is external to the engine and is located under the intake manifold and therefore the sole responsibility of the customer to repair.

In a January 27, 2014 telephone call and in a voice message on January 28, 2014, a CARS’ service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract multiple times with the customer to explain why CARS was unable to assist with the January 17, 2014 mechanical claim.

We would like to point out here that the customer states in the consumer complaint that the customer has been without a vehicle for two (2) full months; however, until the mechanical claim was opened by the repair facility on January 17. 2014, CARS was not made aware of any issues with the customer’s vehicle. In addition, the repair facility advised CARS during the January 17, 2014 telephone call that the customer’s vehicle was towed in to the facility on January 8, 2014.

Furthermore, in the customer’s consumer complaint he stated that CARS advised the repair facility that if the engine had blown up it would have been covered under his service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1 (q): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a non-covered component.” If the customer had continued to drive the vehicle until the engine failed as a result of the oil separator, CARS would not been able to assist with the repair because the failure of a non-covered component (oil separator) caused the failure to a covered component (engine). Therefore, CARS would not have advised the repair facility for the customer to continue to drive his vehicle to cause damage to the engine. CARS advises customers to take their vehicles to a repair facility when the vehicle has mechanical issues.

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 service contract. It is clearly stated in the customer’s service contract: “Covered Components: “Coverage limited to above components.” and “under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): “Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure.” The oil separator is not listed as a covered component under the customer’s service contract.

In addition, the customer refers to a Technical Service Bulletin written about the oil separator. Here, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract it is clearly stated in the terms and conditions at Paragraph 2 (u): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: Coverage is superseded by any manufacturer’s warranty, TSB/factory bulletin, recall or warranty on a previous repair. Here, the failure to the customer’s vehicle was a non- covered component (oil separator) under the service contract; however, if a covered component under the service contract had failed and there was a Technical Service Bulletin about said part then it would not be covered under the service contract. The repair would then be the responsibility of the customer.

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

Please be further advised that the customer states in the consumer complaint that the repair facility’s mechanic has spoken to CARS several times to no avail. CARS has only spoken to the repair facility on two (2) occasions; the first when the mechanical claim was opened on January 17, 2014 and again on January 20, 2014 when we advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the mechanical claim.

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

If the customer’s repair facility has further information to provide in regard to the failure of the vehicle, please have the customer’s repair facility open a new claim and CARS will review the

new findings and determine if the failure is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the January 17, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The customer has service contract coverage through its expiration of April 2, 2017. If a claim is opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles).

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

Review: I took my [redacted] to ** Automotive Repair to inspect my vehicle. The shop got in touch with the Insurance I had purchased named Cars Protection Plus. They checked it then called them. They found two codes with their computerized machine which they use to diagnose what is wrong with the vehicle. However Cars Protection Plus said that they had to tear down the motor and after they would send and adjuster to look at the engine. The same day within a couple of hours they denied the claim without even inspecting the engine. The parts that my vehicle needs are covered. When checking Revdex.com website they are notorious for denying such claims. Please, help me to get this matter resolved Thank youDesired Settlement: That they pay the claim, since it is covered.

Business

Response:

August 19, 2015 VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 [redacted] VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 19, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on June 12, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on July 1, 2015 (See attached Service Contract). On July 27, 2015, at 4:11 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing cylinder head and air pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 27, 2015, at 4:43 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was smoke from the tailpipe and leaks from the valve cover gasket. CARS again went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure and to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Condition of his Service Contract. Fourteen (14) days later, on August 10, 2015, at 11:23 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was smoking. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle had not been touched by the repair facility because the customer advised that he would not pay for the tear-down charges. CARS explained that we needed to know what had failed on the customer's vehicle in order to move forward with the claim. The repair facility's contact person translated for the mechanic and advised that the mechanic was not sure if the valve seals and/or valve guides had failed. CARS again explained that we needed to confirm the cause of failure to determine coverage under the customer's Service Contract. The repair facility advised that they would have the customer call CARS. On August 10, 2015, at 3:29 p.m., a claims manager returned a telephone call to the customer's mother who advised CARS that she wants to make sure CARS will pay for the repair of her son's vehicle prior to authorizing tear-down. CARS advised her that we cannot guarantee anything other than CARS will proceed with the claim according to the Terms and Conditions of her son's Service Contract. CARS further advised that we cannot move forward with the claim until it is verified that a covered component under her son’s Service Contract has failed. On August 12, 2015, at 2:53 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cylinder heads were off and the valve stem seals were the only component needed to repair the customer's vehicle. On August 13, 2015, at 4:06 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, specifically, valve seals are non-covered components. After a management review of the July 27, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle as follows: We could supply the head gasket set for $194.50, the upper intake set for $314.21 and the head bolts for $60.54. ProDemand labor guide stated that decking and the repair should take 36.0 hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered is $2,160.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim after the deductible was applied is $2,629.25, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $2,060.00 towards decking and labor or pay $2,629.25 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility telephone must telephone CARS with the customer's decision prior to any repairs being done to the customer's vehicle. By his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 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 and You are responsible for all charges." 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. The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2 (k): "CARS will arrange for payment of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." The customer is responsible for $100.00 of the authorized amount for the repair of his vehicle.

This insurance is nothing but a waste of money!!!

Review: I purchased an Extended Warranty through CARS Protection PLus. A claim was recently submitted to CARS to have the motor replaced on my vehicle. CARS denied the claim because I have custom wheels on the car. CARS previously approved and paid for claims to the vehicle with the same custom wheels on the vehicle then that are on the car now. I feel since this is a major and costly repair they are finding any excuse not to uphold their agreement with the warranty. The repairs that need to be done to the car were not caused by the fact custom wheels are on the car. I feel that have set a presidence by approving and paying for previous claims on the vehicle with the same exact wheels on the car then that are up there now. If custom wheels were a problem why wasnt it brought to my attention previously.Desired Settlement: I would like for CARS to uphold their end of the agreement and approve and pay for the claim.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 CADILLAC CTS VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated December 28, 2015 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint.Upon receiving the customer's consumer complaint, CARS attempted to reach the customer directly and yesterday, January 14, 2016, the customer returned our telephone call. The customer was agreeable to CARS offer of resolution to her consumer complaint.CARS now considers this matter resolved.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason P. [redacted]General Counsel

Review: I bought the service contract from this company when I purchased my vehicle in 2013. Initially I had refused to purchase the contract but the auto salesman told me they were a good company and I paid over $2,000 for the contract.

The first time my vehicle broke down they told me that they buy the part and deliver to the shop where the vehicle is to be repaired. That meant that it took a whole working week for my vehicle to be repaired and before 3 days are over you cannot get a rental. The part that they sent was lasted about two weeks after being repaired and they insisted on sending another part. Again I could not rent a vehicle until after 3 days and they refused to pay for the labor charges to fix the car even though they are the ones that provided the part.

The second time my vehicle broke down it needed a part in the "valve body" but they declined to pay for the part because it could be sold separately yet they cover the whole unit where the part is located. The valve body is covered under the automatic transmission,

Recently the compressor for my vehicle broke. First they did not send the part as they had insisted before and authorized the shop to buy the part but the amount they approved was not even sufficient to buy the part. The refused to pay for the Freon even though their contract clearly states that "Freon is covered with a covered repair" and refused to pay for the full hours billed.Desired Settlement: I would like this company to reimburse me the loss of earnings due to my not going to work and not being able to rent a vehicle until after three days even though the contract does not say so. This I was told by the first company representative that I spoke to. I would also like a reimbursement for the amount of money that I havce sent for repairs that they should have covered in full.

Business

Response:

September 9, 2015 VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2007 MERCEDES GL450 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 1, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 18, 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 February 19, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”). First Claim: On November 18, 2013 at 10:11 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing left air spring issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount CARS could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the left rear air spring for $155.07. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.6 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $96.00. 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 $155.07 and we could supply the part as stated above; however, we would not be able to assist with the labor charges since the cost of labor was lower than the $100.00 deductible or CARS could pay $155.07 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. On November 18, 2013 at 10:43 a.m., the repair facility advised us to ship the supplied part for the repair of the customer’s vehicle. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On that same day, November 11, 2013, CARS advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival time for the supplied was November 19, 2013. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, on November 26, 2013, CARS paid our supplier a total of $155.07 via credit card. The claim was then closed. Second Claim: On December 2, 2013 at 11:36 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing left rear air bag issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On December 2, 2013 at 12:02 p.m., the repair facility advised that a plastic clip where the air line connects was slipping out of the left side of the air bag. CARS advised that we would call our supplier to ship a replacement part to the repair facility. On December 2, 2013 at 3:46 p.m., our supplier advised CARS that they felt that the air bag was improperly installed; however, they would ship a new air bag to the repair facility. On that same day, December 2, 2013, CARS gave the repair facility an authorization number to the repair facility for 1.6 hours to reinstall the air bag in the amount of $96.00. CARS advised the repair facility that the air bag should arrive by December 3, 2013. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, on December 18, 2013, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $96.00 via credit card. The claim was then closed. Third Claim: On January 15, 2014 at 4:50 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing level control compressor and rear right air spring issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On January 15, 2014 at 5:12 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that rear right air bag was leaking air and burnt the compressor. The repair facility further advised CARS to supply the air spring. CARS advised the repair facility that we would go over the amount CARS could assist with them on January 16, 2014. The repair facility then advised CARS that they would like us to ship the supplied air spring. On January 16, 2014 at 9:05 a.m., we advised the repair facility that since they instructed CARS to supply the air spring to them, CARS was unable to assist with the labor costs for the repair because the labor cost was less than the deductible. On that same day, January 16, 2014, at 11:25 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival date of the supplied part was January 21, 2014. Fourth Claim: On May 28, 2015 at 3:15 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission conductor plate issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On May 28, 2015 at 4:36 p.m., CARS left a voice message for the repair facility to telephone us. On May 29, 2015 at 9:10 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the transmission conductor plate had failed. CARS advised the repair facility that the transmission conductor plate is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The transmission conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission. The repair facility advised that they would tell the customer. Fifth Claim: On July 30, 2015 at 9:55 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner and serpentine belt issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 30, 2015 at 10:39 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the air conditioner compressor had failed. The repair facility further advised that the air conditioner needed routine service. We then went over our claim procedures. On July 30, 2015 at 10:44 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the compressor for $369.99. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $120.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $389.99, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $389.99 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, on August 12, 2015 CARS paid the repair facility a total of $389.99 via credit card. The claim was then closed. By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the her Service Contract. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we 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. CARS went over the options of having the parts shipped to the repair facility or giving a cash allowance towards the customer’s choice of repair with the repair facility on every claim that CARS offered assistance pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, the air springs that were supplied to the repair facility during the November 18, 2013, December 2, 2013 and January 15, 2014 claims were new aftermarket air springs (see attached). The rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract state: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Here, none of the claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, were authorized for eight hours of labor to repair or replace a covered component based on Mitchell OnDemand labor guide; therefore, the customer was not entitled to rental benefits under her Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states at 2 (m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." As you can see from the above paragraphs, CARS processed the claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle within one (1) to (2) business days and estimated shipping times were provided to the customer so that she could make a choice regarding her options for assistance from CARS. It is also stated in the Service Contract and at Paragraph 1 (a): “COVERED COMPONENTS: "COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” The transmission conductor plate and the valve body are two (2) separate components and can be repaired/replaced independently of each other. As stated above, the transmission conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission. The transmission conductor plate is not listed under the covered components pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of your Service Contract. It states on the Service Contract under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” We would like to point out here that when the July 30, 2015 claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the repair facility's labor rate was $80.00 dollars per hour. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. CARS authorized the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the service contract and the customer is responsible for the difference. CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. After review of the claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, it came to CARS attention that the customer is correct in that CARS should have assisted with the Freon replacement during the processing of the July 30, 2015 mechanical claim. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS has attached a copy of the check, we have sent to the customer for the assistance towards the Freon and fluid replacement in the amount of $49.95. For all of the reasons stated in the above paragraphs, CARS stands behind our decisions regarding the claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle and is unable to offer any further assistance with the claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. The customer's vehicle has service coverage through February 19, 2017. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS will pay accordingly. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jason [redacted] General Counsel

Review: I purchased a value plus service contract for my 2004 [redacted]. I opened a claim to have work done on this vehicle. I was given the run around then finally the claim had been approved. Once work had be done to my vehicle cars protection claimed that they never authorized the work and said they would not pay for the repairs. I called prior to work being done on my vehicle and spoke with a representative by the name of [redacted] and she assured me that the claim would be taken care of because the issue with my car was definitely under my warranty.. they continued with false claims of discussions with the my mechanic. I know for a fact that the discussions were false because my sister was sitting with the mechanic while he was on the telephone with the cars representative. I asked for a refund of my purchase payment and they refused.Desired Settlement: I would like them to follow through on what is covered in my contract. They approved the work and then refused to pay once the work was finished. If they do not want to follow through on services documented under contract then I would like a refund

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 27, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 31, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 5, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). On February 24, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle was experiencing cam sensor and timing belt issues. We then reviewed the rental benefits the claim procedures pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract. On February 24, 2015 at 3:58 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing timing belt, crank and cam sensor issues. We then went over claim procedures. On February 24, 2015 at 3:47 p.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility. The repair facility advised that the codes for the cam sensor and the crank sensor were displayed. The repair facility also advised that the timing chain may have issues. The repair facility further advised that some previous repair had been done to the timing chain as evidenced by loose bolts. The repair facility then advised CARS that they had told the customer that they did not want to work with warranty companies and they are not going to do the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. The claim was then closed. On February 25, 2015 at 8:53 a.m., a customer service representative responded to a voice message left by the customer. The customer wanted to know why CARS was denying her claim. The customer service representative advised the customer that the repair facility does not want to work with CARS, and we neither denied nor authorized the claim. We further explained that CARS needs specific information to process the mechanical claim made on behalf of her vehicle. We advised the customer that the repair facility could speak to a claim manager, and provided information to reach the claim managers.On February 25, 2015 at 10:53 a.m., a claims manager advised the repair facility of CARS' claim procedures pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim manager 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 also explained that CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs. We additionally advised the repair facility that he was to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of failure and contact us with the repair facility's findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle. The repair facility was advised that CARS would not be responsible for any repairs done without prior authorization. The repair facility was advised to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down the customer's vehicle to the point of failure and contact us with the findings. On February 26, 2015 at 2:31 p.m., the repair facility advised a claims manager that the customer told him to go ahead with the repair of her vehicle. The repair facility advised that they replaced the cam sensor and the crank sensor. He went over the prices and then stated that he did not have time to deal with this. He told the claims manager to call the customer and work it out with her. The claims manager then advised the repair facility that we would not be able to assist with the repair because the work was completed without prior authorization from CARS. On February 26, 2015 at 2:41 p.m., the claims manager advised the customer that we would not be able to assist with the repairs because the work was completed without prior authorization from CARS. The customer was very upset during this telephone conversation. On February 26, 2015 at 2:43 p.m., CARS' office manager reviewed the mechanical claim in depth with the customer and explained that the repair facility did not obtain authorization prior to repairing her vehicle. The customer then asked for a refund. The office manager advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer is not eligible for a refund. By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1(c): COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, Your signature, repair facility's warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility's identifying information." The identification card also states: "C.A.R.S. will not be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed on the customer's vehicle. The claim procedures outlined on customer’s service contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that all CARS' customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers' service contract. It also states clearly on the identification card clearly states "WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORK. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice." As you can clearly see from the above information, the repair facility was fully aware that authorization was needed prior to work being performed on the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility stated that they did not want to work with a warranty company during a telephone call on February 24, 2015. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the February 24, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant to the customer's service contract. CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer and the repair facility that was chosen by the customer to repair the vehicle failed to follow the claim procedures that must be followed by all CARS’ customers. In her consumer complaint the customer is asking for a refund of her Service Contract. CARS is regulated by state statutes regarding customer refunds. Here, no state statute in [redacted] requires CARS to refund service contract; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time. If the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of her Service Contract on May 5, 2015 the customer and any repair facility chosen by her must follow the claims procedures outlined above, which are contained on her Service Contract and the contract identification card provided to the customer. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Jason P. McConnell General Counsel

Review: We purchased a vehicle with CARS protection plus warranty. The transmission in my truck needed to be completely re-built and it is covered under my warranty. The fine print on the back states that I should have called before any repairs were made. However, I did not see this, and needed a timely repair since this is my only vehicle. [redacted] removed the transmission and the old parts are available for CARS protection plus to view. I called CARS protection plus, and they stated "since the process was already started, nothing will be covered." I have spoke to customer service as well! They will not provide coverage on their warranty or provide good customer service.Desired Settlement: I wish for CARS protection plus to cover re-built parts and installation of transmission, or at least provide part of warranty that I purchased! At least work with me in some manner.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 26, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 16, 2014, 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 October 27, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). On February 24, 2015 at 1:18 p.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then reviewed the terms and conditions of his service contract with him and our claim procedures. On February 25, 2015 at 11:08 a.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the transmission on the customer’s vehicle had already been repaired. We advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair since the repairs were completed without prior authorization. We then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with his father and our claim procedures. On February 25, 2015 at 11:29 a.m., the customer's mother telephoned CARS to obtain the status of the customer's claim. We advised that since the repairs were performed without prior authorization from CARS, we were unable to assist with the repair pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. We then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and our claim procedures. The customer's mother then advised us that she was contacting the Revdex.com. On February 25, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems; specifically the transmission. We then went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facility. On February 25, 2015 at 4:38 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to his repair facility on February 16, 2015. The repair facility further advised that the transmission was already overhauled and ready to be installed in the customer's vehicle. The repair facility explained to CARS that the customer did not notify him that the customer had a Service Contract until the repair was basically complete. The repair facility advised that they would send CARS an invoice for our review. On February 27, 2015 at 8:01 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Condition of the customer's Service Contract, we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the repairs were done without prior authorization from CARS. On February 27, 2015 at 1:09 p.m., CARS advised the customer’s mother that we could not assist with the claim because the repairs to the failed parts had been performed without a claim being opened by the repair facility and authorization given by CARS. By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The service contract states at Paragraph 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information." The identification card also states: "C.A.R.S. will not be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. It was not until February 25, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., that the repair facility telephoned CARS to open a claim and advised CARS that the transmission had already been overhauled and was ready to install in the customer's vehicle. The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s Service Contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that ab CARS' customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers' service contract. It also states clearly on the identification card clearly states "WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORK. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice." As you can clearly see from the above paragraphs, the customer and the repair facility were fully aware that the repairs were performed prior to the February 25, 2015 opening of the transmission claim. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the transmission repairs to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant the customer’s Service Contract or to determine the amount we would be able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer failed to follow the claim procedures that must be followed by ab CARS' customers. If the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of his service contract on October 27, 2015 or when the vehicle reaches 155,901 miles, whichever occurs first, the customer and any repair facility chosen by him must follow the claims procedures outlined above, which are contained on his Service Contract and the identification card provided to the customer. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.CARS protection plus has poor customer service. We signed the warranty without being aware it even was a warranty! That is ours and the salesman's fault, we didn't read over everything we signed as we should have. However, when this was explained to CARS protection plus, they didn't care. They provide NO CUSTOMER SERVICE! They could at least reimburse us for the cost of the warranty, which was $499. We opened the claim before the repair process ended. The parts were all present for a claims' person to inspect. Bottom line is CARS protection plus was not there to help us when we needed them the most. They provide little to no service to their customers!

Regards,

Review: I purchased a 1998 ford ranger on 01/16/2015; along with a service contract from CARS PROTECTION PLUS. I did so knowing I was responsible for most items, Including the tires, which I promptly made an appointment a mechanic to replace, because they where worn. Being in the Army we have our personal vehicles checked for safety before going on leave or pass, so I decided to get them replace. The mechanic discovered that there where issues with the brakes, and the ball joints. I know I'd have to pay for pads, drums and the like, but there were other issues covered under the "covered components" particularly the ball joints. They refused to cover the ball joints (because it was a pre-existing condition) and told the mechanic they would cover roughly $28 dollars of an over $2200 repair. Now if normal wear and tear are factors of the pre-existing conditions, and the term pre-exhistinng condition isn't mentioned in the contract, why do they sell this coverage to cover any vehicle that is not new?It is disappointing that a business with this kind of service can be listed so highly by the Revdex.com.Desired Settlement: I would like them to honor their contract, and assume the risk they take when accepting customers. the ball joints cost for repair and the items under brake components cost of repair.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 26, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on January 16, 2015 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles]. The customer’s Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on January 20, 2015 (See attached "Service Contract"]. On January 23, 2015 at 11:44 a.m., the customer advised a CARS customer service representative that his vehicle was shaking either on January 21, 2015 or January 22, 2015. He further stated that he took his vehicle to a repair facility and was advised that he needed brakes and ball joints replaced. The CARS customer service representative went over the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract with him. On January 23, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing ball joint, brake, parking brake cable, alignment and rear wheel cylinder issues. We then went over our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility. On January 23, 2015 at 1:39 p.m., the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that his vehicle needed tires at the time of vehicle purchase. He further advised that the dealer lowered the sales price of his vehicle so that he could purchase tires. Later that same day the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle had a grinding sound in the rear of the vehicle and popping sounds in the front of the vehicle. The repair facility further advised that the issues with the ball joints were a result of age. CARS advised that we were unable to assist with the ball joint repairs because the failures were prior to the customer's Service Contract acceptance. The brake shoes, alignment, tires, and parking brake cable were non-covered components pursuant to the customer's Service Contract. We then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility. We could supply the rear wheel cylinders for $ 20.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.8 hours to complete, and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $108.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $28.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $8.00 towards labor or pay $28.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility was to get back to us with the customer’s decision. On January 26, 2014 at 9:29 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they thought the customer took the vehicle to the selling dealer. The claim was then closed. Please be advised that by the customer's signature on the service contract application, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS.”) approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. C.A.R.S. does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.” CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, pursuant to the above-referenced telephone conversations, it was determined that issues with the ball joints were present prior to Service Contract acceptance. It is stated in the service contract: “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” The brake shoes, alignment, tires, and parking brake cable are not listed as being covered on the Service Contract; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair. CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. After management review of the invoice supplied by the repair facility, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to assist with the claim as follows: We are willing to assist with ball joints in the amount of $135.48 and the wheel parts/cylinders in the amount of $128.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 4.7 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor CARS can assist with is $282.00. CARS is willing to also waive the $100.00 deductible applied to all claims. The total amount CARS is willing to assist with the claim is $545.48. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned allowances for replacement parts, we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the customer's witnessed and notarized signature if the customer is agreeable to CARS assistance with the January 23, 2015 mechanical claim in the amount of $545.48. Upon our receipt the notarized General Release, we will send a check directly to the customer in the amount of $545.48. The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through April 20, 2015 or until the odometer register 191,971, whichever occurs first. Should his vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.