C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Review: I bought a used BMW X3 on 4/18/2014, after having it for 3 months I decided I did not like it, so I sold it. I also bought a 4 year Service Contract, and paid $1899.00 for it. I sold the BMW on 7/19/2014, which was 3 months later. I contacted CARS, and spoke with [redacted] at phone number ###-###-####. He stated that they would issue a refund minus a service fee, not to exceed $50.00, and a prorated MONTHLY fee, and less any claims paid. I had the vehicle for 3 months, and filed no claims. I asked via email what the refund amount would be, he told me to contact the dealer, I asked what the prorated monthly fee would be via a second email, he told me to contact the dealer. I finally received a check for a little over $700. Based on my math I paid 1899.00 the the 4 years, which is 39.56 per month, times 3 months, equals $118.68, plus the $50.00 service fee, grand total $168.18, from $1899, should have been a refund of $1730.32. I then tried to call to discuss the matter on the phone, and the company kept hanging up on me, they were able to see my number on the caller ID, and they would just disconnect the call.This is very unprofessional, and they need to learn to treat their customers better. I as the customer is the one who paid $1899 for a 4 years service contract, and that means I deserve to be treated with respect. I also have the right to ask, and know what the fee for a monthly prorated service plan costs.Desired Settlement: I would like for [redacted] in Payment Processing to send me a written apology, as well as the owner, I would also like to know that they will incorporate some sort of customer service plan, so that other customers are not treated as I was.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 8, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 18, 2014. On that same date he 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 21, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On July 21, 2014 CARS received a Coverage Cancellation Request from the customer advising that he sold the vehicle and was requesting a prorated refund of the balance of his service contract coverage. A copy of the Coverage Cancellation Request is attached for your review.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions, as well as the cancellation provisions contained on the customer's service contract, a prorated refund check no. [redacted] was then mailed to the selling dealer. The customer’s prorated refund was based upon the amount of money CARS received from the selling dealer for the wholesale cost of the customer's service contract, less three (3) months proration, less a $50.00 service fee. The refund check was sent to the selling dealer to provide the selling dealer the opportunity to also refund the customer his prorated portion of the markup/profit he received from the cost of the customer's service contract.

Thereafter, CARS received multiple emails on September 2, 2014 through September 4, 2014, from the customer requesting information on his refund. Specifically, on September 2, 2014 we received an email from the customer requesting the exact amount of the check that we submitted to the selling dealer. Our representative from payment processing emailed the customer advising that CARS refund check was based upon the amount of money CARS received from the selling dealer at the time of purchase and advised the customer to contact the selling dealer for the amount of refund he was owed. Subsequently, the customer emailed CARS again on September 4, 2014 referencing foul language and demanding that we disclose the amount of the refund. A copy of the emails are also attached for your review.

By the customer’s signature, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. His 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." 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."

Based upon the cancellation provisions and state statute, the customer was eligible for a prorated refund. Therefore, after receiving the customer's Coverage Cancellation Request, CARS promptly issued a prorated refund check no. [redacted] on July 23, 2014 to the selling dealer. At the time the refund check was mailed to the dealer, we also provided the selling dealer with a letter advising the selling dealer of their proration refund that would be due to the customer.

Please be advised that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale between selling dealers and CARS. The wholesale costs of our service contract are also between the selling dealers and CARS and are not made public. In this instance, the selling dealer that sold the customer the vehicle and service contract did make a profit on the customer's service contract. Therefore, any issues with regard to his refund are between the customer and the selling dealer.

At this time, I would also like to address the customer’s concerns in his complaint that we continually hung up on him and also that CARS owes him an apology. Please be advised that CARS is a professional company and we process thousands of calls each and every day. Our staff would not intentionally hang up on any customer, unless the customer was using foul language or verbally abusing our employees. As you can see from the above information, our CARS representative addressed the customer's concerns; however, the customer became angry when he did not receive the answer to his questions. Therefore, CARS has fulfilled all its obligations to the customer regarding his prorated refund.

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

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 never once used foul language, as a matter fact, I used characters instead of foul language, however, the characters were used to make a point, that I merely wanted to know what my prorated fee should have been for 3 months of use of the contract. Which I still do not know the answer to, I was told by my dealer that CARS Plus withholds 1 year as a prorate for the 1st year, no matter how many months were used.

Review: In my opinion, C.A.R.S Protection Plus Service Contracts are written in a very deceiving format. Contract states all lubricated parts within the engine are covered on front page with fine print terms and conditions on back page preventing claim approvals.Desired Settlement: If possible, a refund for the remaining 24 months on my 36 month service contract. Thank You!

Business

Response:

I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: On July 8, 2013 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). On July 27, 2013 the service contract application was accepted with payment and approved by CARS (the attached “Service Contract”).

FIRST CLAIM: On August 19, 2013 at 11:28 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing water pump and power steering rack issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. Later that same day CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply a water

pump for $111.19. Mitchell’s 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 $131.19 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $131.19 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that the customer chose to the allowance. CARS also went over the allowance including rack, with and without variable, and the related labor cost. However, it was the customer’s choice only to repair the water pump at that time. CARS then gave the repair facility an authorization to begin the water pump repair on the customer’s vehicle.

Upon receipt of the final invoice, CARS paid $131.19 to the repair facility via credit card pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

SECOND CLAIM: On April 28, 2014 at 3:44 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim the repair facility advised us that the engine was running rough and the timing chain may have jumped. On May 1, 2014 at 11:11 a.m., the customer advised that the he was moving his vehicle to a new repair facility.

THIRD CLAIM: Almost two (2) months later, on June 17, 2014 at 2:28 p.m., we received a

telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing timing chain issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. Our claims adjuster then again went over claim procedures with the repair facility. We also 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 advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of component failure and contact us with their findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle.

On July 2, 2014 at we received an estimate from the repair facility; however, no cause of failure was indicated for the timing chain, only that it was stretched. The estimate (attached) also stated that the catalytic converter was plugged and the cam position was off due to the timing chain. CARS then called the repair facility, and advised that there were several Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) on the timing chain issues.

On July 3, 2014 at 2:18 p.m., after a review of the TSB and the information provided by the repair facility, CARS advised the repair facility that we would be unable to assist with the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract.

On July 7, 2014 at 4:38 p.m., our claims adjustor explained to the customer that the timing chain is a known issue from GM; therefore, not covered under his service contract. The customer questioned who would read the fine print. We further advised that the catalytic converter is a non­covered component under the service contract. The customer then asked about the engine valves. We explained that the repair facility did not mention any issues with the valves; however, if the valve issues were a result of the timing chain issue or catalytic converter they would not be covered.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The terms and conditions of the service contract clearly state 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 repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle advised CARS of the TSB bulletin.

In addition, 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

catalytic converter is not listed as a covered component under the service contract.

Accordingly, CARS was correct in its decision regarding the June 17, 2014 timing chain claim and we are unable to offer assistance with the cost of said repair.

In his consumer complaint the customer is requesting a refund of the remainder of his service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: Cancellation Provisions: “There is no credit for

early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated.” and “If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid.”

Please be advised that the customer is entitled to a prorated refund of the amount CARS’ received from the selling dealer if the customer’s vehicle currently has a lienholder and the customer is willing to sign a General Release before a notary as follows:

Review: I purchased a extended warranty from Cars Protection Plus Feb/Mar 2015. First I had to call and request my ID Cards. I have had to use this warranty twice. Three times was attempted, but after the first claim I just paid for the repair out of pocket myself the second time. Each time I have been giving the run around. The first time my car was the repair facility at least 5 days longer because the company never sent the part for the repair. I ended up paying more for the repair because of this. Fast Forward to August 6 2015. I started a claim and was given a claims adjuster - Tom Extension [redacted] Who is Rude by the way. I called to follow up because from the previous event I wanted to make sure my part was sent. I was told indeed it was sent. I am stranded in [redacted] waiting for this repair to be completed. As of today 8/13/2015. The dealership is still waiting on the part! When I called 8/11/2015 to get a tracking # so we can track the package. Tom finally returned my call after several hours and left a voicemail that my part was sent NORTH and the dealership would have my part tomorrow (8/12/2015). Now if it was sent NORTH (and where NORTH?) how would it turn around in a day and make it SOUTH where my car has been sitting waiting for service? Mind you Tom would not take the address to the repair shop from me - I had to make yet another call back to the repair shop and have then make yet another call to him. So how did he send it NORTH???? On the voice message Tom gave me a tracking number, but didn't tell me the carrier. I tried to track it on line thru [redacted]. The # [redacted] was rejected by each company's tracking system. I listened to the voice message twice to make sure I had it correctly. I did. Now either this information was misspoken by Tom or it was a way to put me off. I have yet again left a voicemail for Tom to call me back. I called 8/12/2015 no return call and now waiting from this morning's call 8/13/2015. 95% of the time I have been sent a claim adjuster's voicemail. The one time I did get Tom by being directly transferred - he answered the phone put me on hold and then when the phone looped backed for him, he let it ring more than 15 times. The initial contact person(s) that answers the phone is not friendly. Each time I have started a claim (while at the repair facility) I have had to wait for an adjuster to call the shop back to tell them how much they will cover. Which the first time took over 40 mins. The second time was 45 mins and this time I just told the shop to call when they found out something.

So my problem is two fold:

A) Send the dealership the part ASAP

B) Provide better customer serviceDesired Settlement: I need some concrete information as to when this part will be sent to the dealership.

Also I would like to hear some better customer service skills being used if I ever have to call this company again.

Business

Response:

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 13, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on February 5, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 6, 2015 (See attached Service Contract). Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract three (3) claims have been opened as follows: First Claim: On April 28, 2015, at 9:03 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing radiator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On April 28, 2015, at 9:14 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the radiator was leaking fluid. We then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the radiator for $138.79. We could assist with the fluids for the repair in the amount of $14.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.0 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $210.00. 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 $262.79, and we could supply the parts as stated above a pay $110.00 towards labor and $14.00 towards fluids or pay $262.79 towards the repair of the customer's choice. On April 28, 2015, at 9:49 a.m., the customer called CARS to go over his Service Contract because he was not aware that he had a $100.00 deductible. We then went over the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. We then went over his options for CARS' assistance with the radiator claim. The customer advised that he may want to have the radiator shipped. On April 29, 2015, at 9:42 a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to inquire if the customer had made a decision regarding our assistance with the repair of his radiator. The repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was being towed out of the repair facility as we spoke. CARS then advised the repair facility that a new claim must be opened if the vehicle returned to the repair facility for the radiator repair. Five days later, on May 4, 2015 at 10:56 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was not towed from the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted CARS to supply the radiator for the repair of his vehicle. On May 4, 2015 at 11:17 a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS to advise that the customer decided to use CARS' allowance because he did not want to wait for the supplied part. We then gave an authorization number for the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on May 5, 2015 CARS paid the repair facility a total of $262.79 via credit card. The claim was then closed. Second Claim: On June 12, 2015, at 9:29 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear control arms, rear shocks, rear tow link, rear sway bar link, left front wheel bearing, tie rod, valve cover gasket and alignment issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On June 12, 2015, at 9:50 a.m., pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, we then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the left front wheel bearing for $132.31. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.1 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $109.31, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however we would be unable to assist with the labor charges since the cost of labor was less than the deductible, or pay $109.31 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of his choice. On June 12, 2015, at 10:32 a.m., CARS then gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle. We advised that the authorization number was good for 180 days. The repair facility has not yet submitted an invoice for payment to CARS. Third Claim: On August 5, 2015, at 4:43 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing coil pack issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On August 5, 2015, at 5:05 p.m., pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, we then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply front coil for $188.50. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .5 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $123.50, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however we would be unable to assist with the labor charges since the cost of labor was less than the deductible, or pay $123.50 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. On August 6, 2015, at 3:49 p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS with their address so that CARS could supply the part as stated above. The supplied part left our suppliers warehouse on August 7, 2015. On August 11, 2015, at 2:28 p.m., CARS telephoned our supplier for shipping information on the front coil since the repair facility had not yet received the part. We then left a message with the tracking information for the customer. On August 13, 2015 at 2:28 p.m., after receiving the customer's consumer compliant, CARS advised the repair facility that the tracking number shows the supplied part to be in the shipper’s warehouse with no estimated time of arrival. Therefore, CARS will pay the repair facility to use their part and waive the $100.00 deductible. CARS advised that the total allowance for the claim is now $345.00. CARS then reviewed our billing procedures. As of today, August 17, 2015, CARS has not received the invoice from the repair facility for the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, during the processing of the June 12, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, the rear control arms, rear shocks, rear tow link, rear sway bar link, tie rod, and valve cover gasket are not listed for coverage. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to repair the non-covered covered components. It is stated in the customer's Service Contract under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 2 (k): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." During the processing of the April 28, 2015 the customer advised CARS that he was unaware of the $100.00 deductible per claim. CARS did waive the $100.00 deductible for the customer during the processing of the August 5, 2015 coil pack claim due to the delay of the repair facility receiving the part. It is stated in the customer’s Service Contract under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(a) and 3(e): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a 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: determine the cause and extent of damage, and rebuild the component if necessary if CARS deems necessary. The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until all repairs are complete.” In the customer's consumer complaint, the customer states that during the processing of the April 28, 2015 claim his vehicle was in the repair facility five (5) days longer than necessary because CARS did not sent the part. As stated above in the summary of the April 28, 2015 claim, when CARS telephoned the repair facility on April 29, 2015 to obtain the customer’s decision, we were advised that the customer's vehicle was being towed from the repair facility. We then advised the repair facility that the claim was now closed and a new claim would have to be opened if the customer returned his vehicle for repairs. It wasn't until May 4, 2015 that the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had not been towed from the repair facility and the customer would like the cash allowance. At that time CARS immediately issued an authorization number for the repair of the customer's vehicle. CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facility and here we were given the wrong information from the repair facility which caused the delay in the processing of the customer's mechanical claim. We would like to point out here that the first claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle was processed in one (1) day by CARS; however, we were waiting on the customer’s decision and then given the wrong information by the repair facility chosen by the customer. The second claim was processed in one (1) day. Unfortunately, although CARS and our supplier fulfilled their responsibility, the shipper left the package containing the supplied part in a warehouse. When made aware of the issues, CARS management waived the $100.00 deductible for the customer in a goodwill gesture and authorized the repair facility to use their part for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer’s Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. The customer has Service Contract coverage through February 6, 2016. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his 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: On June 24, 2015 CARS received the cause of failure for my vehicle which has a contract through CARS for extended warranty service. The authorized service center informed CARS the #5 cylinder had severe scaring on the cylinder walls, and had a camshaft oiling issue and recommended an remanufactured engine replacement. The engine failure was due to a manufacturer defect not lack of maintenance or customer abuse.

Once I received the diagnosis from the service center and they informed me CARS suggested installing a used engine with approximately 163,000 miles. I called CARS and spoke with Rick and inquired specific details of the suggested engine. He declined to give me any detailed information such as: VECI label number, what supplier they purchased the engine from, etc. At this point CARS gave me the option to take $2,636 for the complete repair or they could send a used engine and pay $788.90 for labor and fluids. Assuming the replacement engine would be a suitable fit and repair I told CARS to go ahead and send the engine to the service center.

On July 7, 2015 the replacement engine arrived at the service center. My mechanic advised me that he did not feel comfortable installing the engine in my truck. The next he the service center advised CARS of the possible engine problems and failures from using a salvaged engine. The mechanic requested they warranty a remanufactured engine to complete the repair and CARS denied his request.

At this point I realize the engine is not used but salvaged and came from a junkyard in [redacted]. The majority of the parts that would be installed in my truck were completely rusted along with other mechanical issues. I then called CARS and asked them to provide the number on the VECI label off the engine to be 100 % sure the replacement engine was the same engine family as my old engine. After 48 hours CARS could not and would not provide any information I requested regarding the replacement engine. So it was unknown if this engine was the correct replacement and if it meet EPA requirements. Due to CARS failing to provide the imperative specific information I told them to send the engine back to the junkyard. CARS service contract terms and conditions states they have the right to supply used parts but it clearly does not state they can use salvaged engines.

I then sent a letter to CARS general consul to try and resolve this repair matter but was unsuccessful. CARS stated they would pay me $2,636 for the complete repair but this is unacceptable seeing as they paid $2,160 for the salvaged engine and were willing to pay $788.90 for labor and fluids. Both combined equal a total of $2,948.90. I'm not asking for a new engine to be installed in my truck but a remanufactured engine is at the least $3,500 just for the engine and has a 4 year warranty. It takes 21 hours of labor for the mechanic to install the new engine but CARS is only willing to cover 12.1 hours.Desired Settlement: I feel CARS should honor the warranty contract I paid for by paying for a remanufactured engine and 21 hours of labor. This is the reason I purchased an extended warranty so I would have coverage if a mechanical problem occurred. Since the failure was no fault of mine I feel CARS should pay for the repair. I the remanufactured engine with it's warranty was installed CARS would not have to worry about labor or parts if something failed because it has a 4 year warranty.

Business

Response:

VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2004 [redacted] VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated August 6, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on April 19, 2013. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 2, 2013. Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract, three (3) claims have been opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle as follows: First Claim: On October 13, 2013 at 11:09 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing timing solenoid issues. We then advised the repair facility that the timing solenoid is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract coverage; therefore, we were unable to assist with the repair of her vehicle. Second Claim: On October 28, 2013 at 9:47 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing timing chain issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the timing set for $155.79, the timing gasket for $39.79, the valve gasket for $49.79, the oil pan gasket for $19.76. We could also authorize $41.50 towards fluids for the repair. Mitchell Demand labor guide stated that the repair should take 11.3 hours to complete and the repair facility’s labor rate was $59.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $678.00. 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 $982.63, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $578.00 towards labor and $41.50 towards fluids for the repair or pay $882.63 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to the take the cash allowance. On November 8, 2013, CARS paid $882.63 via credit card to the repair facility pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed. Third Claim: On June 1, 2015 at 2:18 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On June 1, 2015 at 3:03 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to teardown her vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the cost of teardown/diagnostics were the responsibility of the customer per her Service Contract. During the processing of the claim the repair facility advised CARS that the oil passages were restricted with hard carbon and the timing chain had made contact with the timing cover. The repair facility further advised that the #5 cylinder wall was heavily scoured. On June 24, 2015 at 2:10 p.m., after CARS received the cause of failure and estimate from the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the engine for $1,935.00. We could also authorize $75.00 towards fluid for the repair. Mitchell Demand labor guide stated that the repair should take 12.1 hours to complete and the repair facility rate is $59.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $713.90. 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 $2,623.90, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $75.00 toward fluids for the repair and $613.90 towards labor or pay $2,623.90 towards the repair of the customer's choice. On June 24, 2015, the customer spoke to a Claims Manager and the Director of Operations advising that the customer wanted a new engine installed in her vehicle. Both the Claims Manager and Director of Operations advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, CARS could supply a used engine for her vehicle. On June 30, 2015 at 1:27 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the engine supplied by CARS would arrive at the repair facility between July 3, 2015 and July 7, 2015. We also provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs on the customer's vehicle. On July 8, 2015 at 11:14 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer was unhappy with rust on her engine. CARS advised the repair facility to call CARS with any engine issues. On July 8, 2015 at 4:50 p.m., a claims manager advised the customer that the supplied engine was the correct engine for her vehicle. The claims manager advised the customer that CARS would make the arrangements to pick-up the supplied engine and go over the claim allowance with the repair facility. On July 9, 2015 at 8:57 a.m., CARS advised our supplier that the engine was to be picked up at the repair facility at no cost to the customer. On July 10, 2015, CARS sent the attached letter to the customer advising her of CARS' decision and her Service Contract coverage regarding her June 1, 2015 engine claim. By the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was 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. CARS works with suppliers that we trust to provide good, working, quality parts to our customers. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. It is stated 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.” Mitchell OnDemand labor guide states the removal and installation of an engine to the customer’s vehicle should take 12.1 hours to completer. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS is able to assist with 12.1 hours of labor for the removal and installation of an engine. 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 the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. As stated in the above paragraphs, CARS is still willing to assist in the amount $2,623.90. However, for the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to offer any additional assistance above and beyond $2,623.90 for the June 1, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, the supplied engine that CARS selected for the customer’s vehicle is pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS also waived the $400.00 shipping fees associated with the return of the supplied engine. The customer has Service Contract coverage through May 2, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's 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 [redacted] General Counsel [redacted] Attachments

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.

As stated in the initial complaint, C.A.R.S. does NOT have the right to supply salvaged parts. C.A.R.S. paid $2,160 for the salvaged engine. See attached invoice. If you add $2,160 the amount they paid for the engine along with 12.1 hours of labor $726 and $75 for fluids, it totals $2,961. Which is more than what C.A.R.S. is offering to pay for the repairs ($2,636). The offer does NOT equal their actual documented costs. C.A.R.S. response repetitively copied the terms and conditions of the contract instead of addressing the actual complaint details. As previously stated in initial complaint the definition of salvage is different from the definition of used.

Regards,

Review: I have a bumper to bumper 2year unlimited warranty through SCars Protection Plus. I've only had the vehicle for 7mos. now and I brought the truck to the dealership for a service issue. The dealership called me back and told me that I need a new motor, do you have a warranty and I told them yes and it covers all lubricated parts. Should the motor covered, they told me yes. My service person at the dealership has been getting the runaround for the pass 3 days by the underwriters. This is unacceptable and time consuming and my feeling is this... I believe that this so-called protection plan company is trying to get out of paying their obligation of the promised contract agreement. Something needs to be do with Cars Protection Plus, everyday they don't award the repair, everyday I'm closer to losing everything. Please do something!@Desired Settlement: Put a NEW motor in my truck by the 22nd of May, 2014 or legal action will begin!!

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 13, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on September 14, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on September 30, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

On May 8, 2014 at 9:06 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically, the evaporation purge valve, sway bar link, tensioner pulley, CV axle boots, and transmission cooler lines. We then went over our claim procedures. Later that same day, we advised the repair facility that we were not able to assist with the repair of the customer’s service contract pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The failed parts were not listed on the service contract as covered components.

On May 9, 2014 at 1:57 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically, the engine. We then went over our claim procedures.

During the processing of the claim, it took the repair facility five (5) days to get back with us and as of said date the repair facility still has not given CARS a cause of failure for the customer’s vehicle so that we may determine if the failed part is covered pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

We would also like to point out here that the customer has been difficult to work with during the processing of the engine claim made on behalf of his vehicle. The customer has used profane language with CARS’ staff and has threatened to record phone conversations. I have informed the customer in writing that he does not have permission to record any telephone calls with CARS’ staff. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, permission must be given to record a telephone conversation.

On May 13, 2014 I explained to the customer that in order to move forward with the claim, his permission must be given to tear down the vehicle to the point of failure. Once the repair facility has determined the cause of failure, the repair facility must call CARS with their findings so that we may determine if the repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. As of said date, we still have not heard back from the repair facility with a cause of failure.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states: “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 evaporation purge valve, sway bar link, tensioner pulley, CV axle boots, and transmission cooler lines that were reported to us as failed during the processing of the May 8, 2014 claim are not listed as covered components under the customer’s service contract.

Review: I submitted a review of this business already and would have done this instead but decided to do this form additionally. CARS business practices when it comes to claims is just unacceptable. They sell a warranty on used cars and as im aware a warranty is just that. If something breaks it gets fixed on the providing companies dime. Now it is my fault for accepting a warranty company and not really reading the terms. The amount of time ive been and will be without my truck is far from acceptable. In total it will be 3 weeks by the time I get it back this friday. Not to mention with a $100 deductible for the $2400 warranty I purchased from them at the recommendation of the dealership. My transmission developed a shudder and the amount of hoops that each service company has had to jump through to get this claim paid is far from ok. As I said in my review it is reprehensible and borders on shady. I understand that warranty companies arent in business to pay claims but when theres a valid claim it should be paid. My truck could of been fixed with a replacement trasmission last week but with them wanting the transmission broken down to the point of failure then CARS wanting to "shop around" for parts which I was informed could take 2 weeks and also not knowing where they came from is horrendous. Worse off with their solution to my transmission labor I would have to pay an addition $400 for labor since they only pay $50/hr. $50/hr was a rate from the 1980's and is seriously outdated, and which I dont believe I should be liable for. They are the ones that wanted it broken down which I also dont agree with. If something breaks, and there's a valid warranty your liable. End of story it should be replaced. The delay that has kept my truck in the service is far from acceptable and believe this should be addressed.Desired Settlement: I want them to pay the tech shops hourly rate for the service I have selected not the $50/hr. I want them to cover the costs of the repair that the shop has recommended and not the shopping around they wanted to do to put some god knows that .50c part in my truck because their bottom line is at risk.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 17, 2014. On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 18, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). On April 8, 2015 at 2:33 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that his vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. A customer service representative reviewed with the customer, his coverage, criteria for a repair facility, and our claim procedures. On April 13, 2015 at 9:29 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. A customer service representative reviewed the customer's coverage and claim procedures with the repair facility. On April 15 2015 at 10:14 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from another repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On April 15, 2015 at 11:27 a.m., a claim adjuster attempted to call the person at that repair facility that opened the claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle; however, he was advised that that person would not be in until the next day. On April 16, 2015 at 10:55 a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that there was a "chatter noise:" coming from the transmission. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear the vehicle down to the point of component failure and get back to us with their findings and an estimate for repair. Twelve (12) days later, on April 28, 2015 at 9:26 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the torque converter failed which sent metal through the unit. On April 28, 2015 at 11:02 a.m., after CARS received and reviewed the estimate from the repair facility and had the opportunity to check on the availability of parts, we then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $650.00. 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 $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $325.00. 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 $875.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $225.00 towards labor or pay $875.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We also advised the repair facility that it should take four (4) to five (5) business days for any supplied parts to get the repair facility. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision. By the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, he acknowledged that he has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. The Service Contract states under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $50.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” On the estimate faxed to CARS on April 28, 2015 (attached) the repair facility lists the cost of labor as $95.00 per hour. As stated above, Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide states the repair to the customer's vehicle should have taken 6.5 hours to repair and his Service Contract will pay $50.00 per hour for the labor charges; therefore, CARS is able to pay $325.00 if the customer chooses to use the repair facilities parts and $225.00 if the customer chooses to use our supplied parts. Pursuant the customer's Service Contract, the customer is responsible for the difference. It states in bold at Paragraph 3 (c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle in excess of coverage outlined under Labor and Diagnostics.” 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. It is stated at Paragraph 2 (j): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." The customer’s claim is subject to a $100.00 deductible as per his Service Contract. 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 the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. We would like to point out here that it took the repair facility twelve (12) days to get back to CARS with the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle. Once the cause of failure was provided to us, CARS provided the amount we could assist with for the repair of the customer's vehicle the same day. For all these reasons above, CARS is unable to provide any additional assistance with the repair of the customer's vehicle. Once the repair facility gives us the customer’s decision on which option for assistance he would like to use to repair his vehicle, CARS will provide an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, [redacted] General Counsel [redacted] Attachment

Review: I recently purchased a used car with a 3 month, 4,500 mile warranty issued by Cars Protection Plus. Well within the warranty period, the car (Subaru Legacy Outback) required head gasket replacement. As I needed the car, I had it repaired at a local repair facility and paid for the repair.Contacting Cars Protection Plus, I was told that the dealer where I purchased the car must submit the receipt for the repairs that the car needed, which I thought was somewhat odd seeing that the dealer is now a third party who provided the car and the warranty. Cars Protection Plus (CPP) remains steadfast in telling me that the receipt for repair must come from the dealer where I purchased the car and providing no other means to honor their contract. I hold that the dealer, who is the issuer and provider of the contract and automobile are no longer part of the process and that all and any dealings should be between the issuer of the warranty and myself. The bottom line is that currently, I have a worthless guarantee and may, barring no response in this venue, to seek litigation by other means and hold CPP in breach of contract.Desired Settlement: All of the $1,600 for the work that should have been covered by this warranty.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 15, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 23, 2014 at 10:23 a.m., CARS telephoned the customer in response to an email sent by the customer advising that his vehicle was leaking coolant and had timing belt, water pump and gasket issues. During that telephone call, we thoroughly searched our database and could not find any record of the selling dealer ever submitting to CARS a service contract application with payment for the above-referenced vehicle. We also advised that the selling dealer could still submit the service contract application with payment and proof of repair. We then referred the customer to the selling dealer.

Later that same day, CARS received the customer's service contract application; however, the service contract application was rejected because we were previously notified that the customer's vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance.

On September 23, 2014, we advised both the customer and the selling dealer in writing that the customer's service contract application was rejected. We also advised that proof of repairs would be required upon resubmission for possible approval by CARS. Copies of both letters are attached for your review. At no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract application.

On October 3, 2014 at 8:50 a.m., CARS telephoned the customer in response to an email sent by the customer advising us that his vehicle now repaired. We advised the customer that the selling dealer must resubmit the service contract application, payment, and proof of repairs to CARS for possible approval. We then referred the customer back to the selling dealer.

On October 8, 2014 at 2:10 p.m., the customer advised us that the head gasket has been replaced on his vehicle. We then went over the rejection letter and advised the customer that the selling dealer must resubmit the service contract application, payment, and proof of repairs to CARS for possible approval. We then referred him back to the selling dealer.

On October 9, 2014 the letter sent advising the service contract application rejection to the customer was returned to CARS as undeliverable. Please see attachment.

It was also thoroughly explained to the customer during the above-referenced telephone calls that if CARS was made aware of a mechanical failure, prior to the dealer submitting for acceptance the service contract application and payment, CARS would reject and send back the service contract application with payment. At that time we would require proof of repairs before possible acceptance of said service contract application. In addition, if the dealer submitted a service contract application thirty (30) days or more after the purchase date of the vehicle, CARS would reject/send back the service contract application with payment and require an inspection before possible approval.

Please also be advised that by the customer’s signature on his service contract application, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. Directly below the customer's signature, it clearly states: "The Service

Contract Goes into effect when this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc." In addition, the service contract application clearly states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: "Component failures that occur before C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("C.A.R.S.") approves this Service Contract Application are not covered. C.A.R.S. does not warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.” The service contract also states at 2(d): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S." Since CARS was notified that the customer's vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance and no monies were accepted by CARS, the customer's vehicle currently does not have coverage under any of CARS' service contracts. Therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle.

Until CARS receives service contract applications with payment, we have no information that the customers even purchased a CARS service contract. It is the responsibility of the dealer to submit the service contract application with payment for approval and also the customers’ responsibility to contact CARS if they do not receive notification that their service contract was approved.

CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to the dealers and it is the dealer's responsibility to submit the service contract application with the required paperwork for service contract approval. CARS does not sell its service contracts to the public; therefore, until service contract application approval, the dealer is responsible to furnish CARS with all appropriate information for our review of the service contract applications.

CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect on the day they are received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. Since CARS never received or approved a service contract application with payment from the selling dealer, the customer's

Review: I was sold a warranty provided by Cars protection plus for $895.00 when I purchased my 2004 jeep grand cherokee. When went to file my first claim for the transfer case that is covered they told me they offer cash value of a used part or send a used part to the service shop. I had them send the used part. When it arrived it was broken so the shop had to take part from my old case at my expense for the labor to swap parts. Once the case was repaired and installed it was immediately apparent this transfer case was in worse condition then the old one. They offer to send another used case if I wanted to pay the labor to take it out and shipping back and fourth. At this point I did not want any more abuse from this company. To date the experience cost me 400.00 and loss of use of the vehicle for 5 weeks. The transfer case Cars sent is so bad I barely can drive the vehicle. I have put in a request to cancel the service contract and be refund the full amount. They advised me they will refund the balance less the claim that was paid, service fee, and pro-rated fee for time the contract was is service. This amount which they will not disclose will be credited back to my loan. I feel this company is selling fraud and must be stopped.Desired Settlement: Cars has sold me a service contract that has made my car worse then it was. It is going to cost $1200.00 to rebuild the transfer case they sent. I want a full refund for the service contract price for $895.00 plus the $400.00 I paid through the claim procedures. This amount can be credited back to my vehicle car loan.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated July 31, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 10, 2014. On the date of purchase, the customer’s vehicle registered 97,774 miles on the odometer. On that same date she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on January 21, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

Two (2) claims have been opened since the inception of the customer’s service contract:

FIRST CLAIM: On January 27, 2014 at 2:57 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front differential and transfer case issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle registered 98,819 miles on the odometer. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

After CARS was notified by the repair facility of the cause of failure and received an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the transfer case for $300.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.1 hours to complete, and the customer’s service contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $105.00. 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 $305.00, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $5.00 towards labor or pay $305.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer advised CARS to have us ship the supplied transfer case.

On February 6, 2014 at 2:01 p.m., the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle notified CARS that the tail housing was cracked and the bolts were bent on our supplied transfer case. They further advised that they could swap out parts for the supplied transfer case. We then advised them to call us back with the cost.

On February 7, 2014 at 11:35 a.m., the customer advised CARS that she agreed to use the supplied transfer case, with certain parts on the transfer case replaced by the repair facility. The repair facility advised us that the cost of repairing the supplied transfer case would be $85.00 for parts and 3.5 hours additional labor. CARS advised that our supplier would pay the $85.00 toward the repair and that CARS would now authorize $282.50 for labor. The claim was subject to a $100.00 deductible; therefore, CARS could pay $182.50 toward labor. With the additional monies towards the additional labor, the customer’s claim was now authorized by CARS for a total of $482.50. Our parts supplier was also to pay the repair facility the amount of $85.00 directly for their supplied parts to repair their supplied transfer case.

After CARS received the final invoice from the repair facility advising that the repairs were completed, pursuant to the above-referenced claim allowance, CARS paid the repair facility via credit the amount of $182.50. CARS subsequently also paid our parts supplier for the cost of the transfer case in the amount of $300.00. The claim was then closed.

Thereafter, on February 25, 2014 at 2:53 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that the vehicle was making noise. We advised the customer to return the vehicle to the repair facility that performed the repairs and have a new claim opened.

Over a month later, on April 4, 2014 at 4:11 p.m. the customer again telephoned CARS to advise that she was still experiencing transfer case issues. We again went over our claim procedures, wherein the customer advised that she was taking the vehicle to the repair facility on that date; however, no new claim was opened at that time.

Approximately one (1) month later, on May 1, 2014 at 10:58 a.m. the customer telephoned CARS and advised us she was experiencing front and rear differential issues and would call CARS when her vehicle was at a repair facility. Later that same day, a customer service representative spoke to customer's boyfriend and reviewed the claims procedures. The customer's boyfriend was upset that the vehicle had to stay at the repair facility while a claim was open. After he stated that he wanted to cancel the service contract, he was transferred to the cancellation department.

On May 6, 2014 at 2:40 p.m., a customer service representative advised the customer's boyfriend of CARS’ cancellation policy. We then emailed a cancellation request form to the customer's supplied email address.

SECOND CLAIM: On May 9, 2014 at 1:25 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front and rear differential issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle registered 101,803 miles on the odometer. According to our records 2.984 miles were driven on the vehicle since the first claim was opened on January 27, 2014. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised them to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of failure and contact us with their findings prior to beginning any work on the vehicle.

During the processing of the claim, we advised the customer's boyfriend that without a cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle we could not move forward with the claim. The customer’s boyfriend requested an exception to the tear down requirements on the vehicle. We advised of our reasons for needing a cause of failure and extent of damages, wherein he then stated that he was familiar with our tactics and hung up on our claims adjustor. After thirty (30) days without any further communication from the customer or the repair facility, the claim was then closed.

On July 31, 2014 during three (3) separate telephone calls, the customer's boyfriend advised CARS that he was not satisfied with the service contract and wanted to cancel. During these telephone conversations, the customer’s boyfriend would not allow us to review the terms and conditions of our service contracts with him.

Please be advised that by the customer's signature on her service contract application, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. It is stated at Paragraph l(o): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from

improperly maintaining or failing to maintain the vehicle.” Here, as evidenced in the above paragraphs, the customer and her boyfriend were told multiple times by CARS to have a new claim opened. Additionally, they also stated that new claims were going to be opened; however, there was no new claim opened until May 9, 2014: four (4) months after the first claim was opened. To reiterate, after the first claim was opened, authorized and paid, the customer continued to drive the vehicle an additional 2.984 miles, while stating that her vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. It was the responsibility of the customer to take the vehicle to a repair facility and open a claim to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage.

In addition, the customer’s service contract states at Paragraph 3(c): "SERVICE

CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine exactly what caused the failure and the extent of damage to the vehicle. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis of the customer's vehicle. Stated more accurately, we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage. During the May 9, 2014 conversation with the customer’s boyfriend, he requested that CARS bend the rules and not require the tear down of the vehicle. When we advised that we could not honor his request, we had no further communication with the customer, her boyfriend, or the repair facility for over thirty (30) days and the claim was then closed.

In the customer's consumer complaint, the customer is requesting a refund of the amount she paid for her service contract. Please be advised that the customer's service contract clearly 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.” Since CARS paid a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle which exceeded the wholesale purchase price paid for the service contract to CARS by the selling dealer, there is no refund available from CARS. Any additional refund the customer feels is due them from the dealer is between the customer and the dealer.

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

Please further be advised that CARS since this complaint was received, CARS received a cancellation request from the customer to cancel her service contract coverage. Therefore, as of this date, the customer’s service contract is cancelled and her vehicle no longer has CARS service contract coverage.

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 had recently filled a complaint about cars protection plus but was unable to respond to the reply due to email carrier issues. I just received replies 8/24/14. This complaint is not resolved. This is my reply to them. When I picked up the vehicle 2/12/14 and the transfer case Cars provided was making worse grinding noises then the the original unit I called the shop within 1 hour of picking up the vehicle and told them it was worse than when I brought it in they advised me to drive it to work in the fluid. I did so for three days and the grinding noise only got worse. On the forth day after picking up the vehicle I contacted my claims adjuster at Cars at ext.[redacted] is his name. He told me I could take the vehicle back to the shop and open a new claim and pay again 100.00 deductible and cost to tear down the transfer case Cars had just sent a week prior. At this point I determined Cars method of doing business is an absolute waste of time and money. I have since ordered a remanufactured transfer case for 795.00 and had it installed for less then it cost to do the broken transfer case Cars had sent and it is perfect now. I want all the cost of of the fraud that has been forced on me 295.00 for the transfer case claim and the cost of the service contract 895.00 all refunded to my loan. If they are not willing to do that I will follow through getting all of the other complaints together against this company that have not been resolved fairly and we will all take them to court.

Review: After breaking down out of state,CAR'S Will not honor warrantyDesired Settlement: Would like repair bill paid

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 27, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 1, 2013, the consumer

purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 82,530 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the consumer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 6, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”). On March 1, 2013, the consumer upgraded his Value Plus Service Contract for an additional 12 months and now has service contract coverage on the vehicle through May 6, 2014. Thereafter, the consumer was sent an identification card, which clearly outlined the claim procedures.

On August 23, 2013, at 2:11 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the consumer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the fuel pump. We then went over our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility and the amount we could authorize for the repair as follows: We could supply a fuel pump for $142.13. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide states that the repair should take 1.5 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. The total labor for the claim was $90.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. Therefore, the total value of the claim was $132.13, once the deductible was applied. We explained to the repair facility that we could supply the fuel pump as stated above and pay nothing towards labor due to the deductible or pay $132.13 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision in order for CARS to issue an authorization number and move forward with the claim.

On that same date at 2:34 p.m. we received a telephone call from an individual identifying herself as either the customer’s girlfriend or wife, whom the customer gave CARS permission to speak with, inquiring about the amount we were willing to authorize for the claim. Our customer service department representative went over the customer’s service contract coverage and also the amount CARS was willing to pay for the claim. The customer’s girlfriend/wife stated that they were unhappy with the coverage and wanted to cancel their coverage and the call was transferred to our cancellation department. Our cancellation department explained to the customer’s girlfriend/wife that pursuant to the terms and conditions of her service contract no refund was available.

On August 27, 2013, at 11:04 a.m., we received a telephone call from the customer’s wife/girlfriend advising that the repairs to the vehicle were completed and was seeking reimbursement for the repair. During that telephone conversation, we began to explain that unfortunately we could not assist with the repair because the work was done without prior authorization from CARS. The customer then got on the line and began screaming obscenities at our customer service representative and hung up the call.

By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s Value Plus Service Contract clearly states: “1. COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: c. Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS; 3. SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: e. 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 g....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 aforementioned claim procedures were thoroughly reviewed with the repair facility chosen by the customer; however, the claim procedures were clearly not followed.

As you can see from the above information, it was clear that the consumer was not happy with the amount of money CARS was willing to pay for the claim allowance and wanted to cancel the service contract coverage. Please be advised that 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 service contract holder what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible, as well as claim procedures that MUST be followed. Here, the customer's service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour; however, the repair facility’s labor rate was $80.00. The customer was responsible for the difference in the labor rate. In addition, the customer could have used our parts or taken our money allowance; however, we never heard back from the repair facility regarding the customer’s decision on how to proceed with the claim so that we could provide an authorization number.

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

However, the customer has service contract coverage through its expiration of May 6, 2014. If the customer experience mechanical failures in the future, the customer and any repair facility chosen by the customer must follow the claims procedures outlined above, and also contained on the service contract and on the identification card provided to the customer. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s 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.

Adjuster was a jerk they don't pay for anything not even half of the work needed everything that says is covered isn't covered never again will I deal with them it's been two weeks and they still haven't issued a check to the mechanic

Review: May 27th 2015To whom it may concern,My name is [redacted] and I purchased an extended warranty on my 2003 VW Beetle on 01-10-2014 Cost for the warranty was $599.00 and is good for thirty six months unlimited mileage. As of now we are approximately at the seventeen month mark. My complaint is we had work done on the car by [redacted] at [redacted] ###-###-#### and the warranty company will not cover the repairs. The car windows stopped working so we brought it in to have [redacted] look at it and give us an idea what was wrong. We were told in May 2015 that the window motor and etc. had gone bad and would need to be replaced. I gave [redacted] the warranty paperwork and they said they would make the necessary calls. It does state clearly in the warranty paperwork that power window motors, switches are covered under the warranty. [redacted] called us back once they had diagnosed and knew what repairs needed to be done. It was stated by [redacted] that the warranty company Cars Protection denied the coverage. They called and asked to speak with the manager and never received a call back after it was denied. Note: I had another claim awhile back with the same insurance company and they did cover the repairs but it was a nightmare dealing with them. I feel like they deny the claim with the hope you will not pursue the claim. At this point we had no choice to get the repairs done because the windows did not work. I gave permission for [redacted] to do the repairs. I have enclosed a copy of the repairs done and a copy of the warranty paperwork. I had to take out a loan with my bank and now will be paying interest on the repair bill when I feel I the warranty should cover its fare share of the repair bill. I will be sending a copy to the Revdex.com, Cars Protection, and [redacted] is where we purchased the additional insurance. I will allow a reasonable amount of time before I send it to the Attorney General. Complaint against:###-###-####Cars Protection Plus[redacted]Purchased the extended warranty from:Wes Garrett ###-###-####[redacted]Desired Settlement: Would like for the insurance company to pay for there fair share of the cost on the window motor and switches as stated in there agreement.

Business

Response:

June 2, 2015 VIA: EMAIL/Revdex.com WEBSITE RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2003 VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE VIN (Last 8[redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 2, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 10, 2014. On that same date she also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (36 Months/45,000 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 15, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). First Claim: On April 25, 2014, at 9:05 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioning compressor and secondary air flow pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On April 25, 2014, at 9:22 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that these were non- covered components under the customer's Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim. Second Claim: On May 19, 2014, at 1:14 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On May 19, 2014, at 1:32 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the water pump for $55.22. [redacted] labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $170.00. 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 $125.22, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $70.00 towards labor or pay $125.22 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice. The attached invoice was submitted to CARS by the repair facility for payment on June 2, 2015. As shown on the invoice, the repair facility invoiced CARS in the amount of $82.08 for our portion of the repairs to the customer's vehicle. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, on June 3, 2014, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $82.08 via check. The claim was then closed. However, after CARS review of this invoice, CARS is willing to pay the customer an additional $43.13, which represents the difference between what CARS authorized and the amount we were invoiced for the repairs made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. A check in the amount of $43.13 will be mailed directly to the customer. Third Claim: On April 29, 2015, at 3:54 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing driver and passenger window regulator and window motor issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's door module needed to be coded. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On April 29, 2015, at 4:28 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that these were non- covered components under the customer's Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim. By the customer’s signature on her Value Limited Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." The driver and passenger window regulators and window motors are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair. Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the April 29, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. We would like to point out here that the Form number B1003 [redacted] is not the Service Contract form number for the Service Contract submitted by the selling dealer to CARS. The selling dealer submitted a Value Limited Service Contract and CARS approved a Value Limited Service Contract with payment on January 15, 2014. The customer has service contract coverage through January 15, 2017 or when the odometer registers 145,558 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of her Value Limited Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Review: Hello my name is [redacted], I currently have a warranty contract with "cars protection plus" my engine recently failed and seized. I followed procedure per contract and opened a claim on the 27th of February 2015. My mechanic then began a diagnosis of the engine to find out why it failed, first thing he found was that the timing Chain and tensioner wasn't working.He presented his findings to "C.P.P" they then denied case.The following week My mechanic then began further diagnosis per order of my lawyer and found that 2 Pistons in the engine were shredded shortly after finding that new evidence he calls "[redacted]" at C.P.P(claims supervisor) ask him to reopen claim and also if they were able to send their own technicians so they can validate thy everything is true.[redacted] tells my mechanic that they will review case and after reviewing it they still deny it.

Problem is with this new finding the piston was the cause of engine failure and that's a covered component. So why not cover it now after this finding?Desired Settlement: I want Cars Protection Plus to honor their contract and repair my engine

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 23, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On June 3, 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 June 17, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”). FIRST CLAIM: On August 14, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front axle issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply both the right and left front axles for $275.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.5 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $150.00. 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 $325.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $50.00 towards labor or pay $325.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The customer chose to take our cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on August 20, 2014 CARS paid the customer $325.00 via check. The claim was then closed. SECOND CLAIM: On November 19, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing power steering pump and switch and hose issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply the power steering pump for $233.45 and the press hose for $329.64. CARS’ could also pay $10.00 towards fluids for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $204.00. 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 $677.09, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $10.00 towards fluid and $104.00 towards labor or pay $677.09 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take our cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, on November 24, 2014 CARS paid the repair facility $677.09 via credit card. The claim was then closed. THIRD CLAIM: On February 27, 2015 at 11:23 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear down his vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, the customer was responsible for all tear down and diagnostic costs. On March 5, 2015 at 10:33 a.m. the repair facility advised CARS that the timing chain had failed and threw the engine out of time. He advised that he had found both valve and piston top damage and that the customer’s vehicle needed an engine replacement. On March 6, 2015 at 2:58 p.m. after reviewing the repair facility's estimate, CARS telephoned the repair facility and advised that if the timing chain is not broken we would need to know the cause of failure to the customer's vehicle. On that same day, March 6, 2015, at 3:21 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised that the timing chain tensioner caused the failure to the customer’s vehicle. On March 6, 2015 at 4:22 p.m. CARS advised the repair facility that under the customer’s Service Contract the timing chain tensioner is a non-covered component and any damage caused by the tensioner is not covered. On March 18, 2015 at 11:17 a.m. the repair facility telephoned a CARS claims manager to advise that the customer had paid to have the engine torn down further and the timing chain tensioner was not the cause of failure. The repair facility advised that the #4 and #5 pistons caused the failure to the customer's engine. The claims manager advised the repair facility that the failure of the timing chain tensioner would cause piston damage to occur. The claims manager advised that he would review the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and contact the repair facility with our decision. On March 18, 2015 at 2:00 p.m., after a management review of the engine claim, the claims manager advised the repair facility that CARS was standing by its original decision and unable to assist with the February 27, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

Review: Cars Protection Plus insisted on furnishing (shipping) a used engine to my local repair shop to replace a defective engine. Two months later the engine is leaking oil. Cars Protection Plus is now claiming that the engine they furnished has no warranty on it. If the local repair shop had been allowed to replace the engine I would have received a warranty on the used engine. Cars Protection Plus uses tactics that scam consumers.Desired Settlement: Cars Protection Plus must warranty the engine they furnished to my local repair shop. The industry standard is six to twelve months.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 10, 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 August 30, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on September 3, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

On October 24, 2013 at 3:53 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the engine. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, after the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and estimate for repair, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the engine for $950.00 and pay $48.00 towards fluids. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 11.5 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $690.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $1,688.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the engine and pay $690.00 towards labor or pay $1,688.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision. On October 29. 2013 at 3:27 p.m.. the repair facility advised us that the customer wanted to CARS to ship our supplied engine to the repair facility.

On October 30, 2013, at 4:41 p.m., the customer telephoned us to check on the status of the engine claim. We advised the customer that the repair facility told us that the customer wanted CARS to ship our supplied engine to the repair facility. We also went over the options of shipping the engine to the repair facility or the customer taking the cash allowance, which was explained to the repair facility in detail as outlined above.

After CARS received the final invoice verifying that the repairs were complete, CARS paid the repair facility the amount of $638.00 via credit card on November 7, 2013. CARS also paid the supplier for the customer’s supplied engine.

Thereafter, on February 7, 2014 at 10:51 a.m., the customer advised a customer service representative that the water hose broke off the customer’s vehicle because the mechanic who replaced the engine vehicle forgot to put a clamp on the hose. Later that same day, the customer was advised by a customer service representative to take the vehicle to a repair facility and have a claim properly opened.

On February 7, 2014 at 3:23 p.m., the customer telephoned the claims adjustor who worked on the October 24, 2013 claim asking if the oil pan on his vehicle was covered for leaks. The claim adjustor advised the customer that the oil pan gasket is a non-covered component pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On February 10, 2014, the customer emailed CARS in regard to this matter. We have enclosed a copy of the email (attached) sent to our customer service department and our response (attached) for your review.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement part we used the cost of the part to be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer had the choice to have our supplied engine shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. In this case, the customer chose to take have CARS ship an engine to the repair facility. We were advised of the customer’s decision by the repair facility. Additionally, on October 30, 2013 the claim adjustor also went over the options as stated above with the customer.

Please be further advised that the engine that was supplied for the customer’s vehicle had a ninety (90) day parts and labor warranty. The warranty for the replacement engine has now expired and any failures to the engine will be reviewed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

In addition, the customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, in order for a claim to be opened, and the vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete.” In

addition, it is also clearly stated at Paragraph 3(b): “The repair facility must call C.A.R.S. at ###-###-#### to open a claim.” As of this date, the customer has not taken his vehicle to a repair facility to open a claim; therefore, we cannot determine the cause and extent of the failure to his vehicle. As you can see from the above paragraphs the customer has advised CARS and the Revdex.com of different causes of failures (i.e. the engine, the oil pan, and an improper previous repair of the clamp not being placed on water hose). We cannot determine the cause and extent of failure to the customer’s vehicle unless the customer takes his vehicle to a repair facility to have a claim properly opened.

We would like to reiterate here that as stated above the customer’s engine did have a warranty on parts and labor that has now expired. In addition, the customer was given the option of having CARS ship a replacement engine to the repair facility or to take cash allowance to assist with the repair of his vehicle. The customer chose to have CARS supplied replacement engine shipped to the repair facility.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled its obligation to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. 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 (24 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 have the C.A.R.S warranty (Vin Number [redacted]), I gave the car to my mechanic as I smelt gas inside. the mechanic diagnosed with replacing the fuel pump and connected parts. We called C.A.R.S warranty and spoke to [redacted] said fuel ump is not covered under the warrany. I had to do the repairs as I could ot wait for the resolution and be without a car. my car is repaired and fuel pump replaced, with labour cost the total bill is $594.30.. I called up customer service today and she says.. fuel pump is covered but the mechanic told that it was the sending unit and not the fuel pump...and she says now they can not pay me because the ticket has to be opened before the repairs.. have done everything from my part.. but I feel cheated by the C.A.R.S. warranty as they are just trying to cheat customers by their tricks.. please help me with this matter. -ThanksDesired Settlement: I want C.A.R.S. to pay the cost of repairs of $594.30 if not then refund my total warranty Amount of $1,500/- as they are proven to cheat customers time and again..

Consumer

Response:

There were few other parts which has to be replaced with the Fuel pump like the Cable Harness, Bracket, Seal Rings etc..which amountedto about $100 (bills already sent).

The car was with the mechanic for 4 days because of your delay.. I had to use a [redacted] for this duration and I spent about $100 for it as well.

Regards,

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your most correspondence dated September 23, 2013 containing the customer’s counter-offer in regard to the above-captioned matter. Please be advised that the additional components in need of repair on the customer’s vehicle (i.e. cable harness, bracket and seal rings) are all non-covered components pursuant to the customer’s service contract. Therefore, it would be the sole responsibility of the customer to pay for those parts and the labor associated with the repairs of those parts.

In addition, as stated in our previous letter, CARS admitted that an error occurred when they processed the customer’s claim. CARS then processed the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. Additionally, in a good will gesture, CARS waived the $100.00 deductible, which would normally be the responsibility of the customer.

Accordingly, at this time, CARS stands behind its original offer of $273.79. Please advise if the customer is acceptable to this amount.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your correspondence dated September 5, 2013 regarding the above­referenced consumer complaint. I have reviewed the customer’s complaint with one of our claims managers and I would like to respond as follows:

According to our claims manager, the failure of the fuel sending unit is part of the fuel pump unit on the customer’s vehicle; therefore, the claim called in on August 20, 2013, should have been covered and authorized by CARS. Please be advised that there was a new claims adjuster handling the customer’s claim, who inadvertently denied coverage and at this time we would like to apologize for the error and any inconvenience this may have caused. Therefore, CARS would like to rectify the situation as follows:

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, CARS could have purchased a fuel pump assembly unit for $198.79. Mitchell’s OnDemand states that the repair should take 1.0 hour to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $75.00 per hour. Total labor is $75.00. The claim would be also subject to a $100.00 deductible; however, at this time we are willing to waive the deductible for any inconvenience. Therefore, the total value of the claim is $273.79.

If the Customer is acceptable to the $273.79, please have him/her contact CARS at ###-###-#### Ext [redacted] and speak with [redacted] and have the customer reference claim no. [redacted]. CARS will also require a copy of the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs were completed on the vehicle before payment can be made to the customer.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call.

Review: I had my vehicle towed using the Roadside assistance the morning of Dec. 10, 2015. Upon arrival at an approved repair facility, my vehicle was immediately diagnosed and the call to the claims department was initiated. At first there was no answer and no way to leave a message. Then the call was answered and the phone call transferred and then dropped. The fifth attempt was met by an out to lunch message. No answer all afternoon and then at 430pm EST., I personally called and the message was that they were closed for the day and that their business hours were until 5pm EST. NOTE that I called at 430 pm EST. And there was no way to leave a message. Absolutely zero of the forwarding options worked. Now I have a vehicle sitting at the shop tore down and they can't repair it and I have no transportation. The repairs needed would have easily been able to be completed today. I am in the process of getting a rental now, which I don't have the money for.Desired Settlement: I want an truthful explanation of today's lack of customer service. I also want complete reimbursement of the rental and my $100 co-pay waived. I want the repair facility ([redacted] Automotive [redacted]) Authorized to complete all needed repairs and all parts paid for by CARS.

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2000 FORD EXPEDITION VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: C-[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated December 10, 2015 enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the difficulties the customer and the repair facility experienced while attempting to reach CARS via telephone on December 10, 2015 to open a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.After receiving your letter, CARS contacted the repair facility and processed the claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. In a goodwill gesture, CARS waived the $100.00 deductible that the customer was responsible to pay pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.On December 10, 2015 CARS experienced technical difficulties with our telephone system. These technical difficulties affected other businesses in our nearby area as well. These difficulties were beyond our control and we apologize for any inconvenience to the customer and to the repair facility.After the claim was processed CARS went over the claim with the customer and the waiving of the deductible towards the repair of his vehicle.CARS considers this matter now resolved.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,

Review: Followed all instructions of service agreement, but repairs deniedDesired Settlement: Honor service agreement

Business

Response:

August 12, 2015VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2003 [redacted] VIN (Last [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records on July 20, 2015, after CARS received the transfer of ownership and payment for the transfer, a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) was transferred to the customer by the original purchaser of the Service Contract (See attached "Service Contract”).On August 7, 2015, at 1:41 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential and tie rod issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On August 7, 2015, at 2:01 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that a growling noise was coming from the rear differential and fluid had leaked from the pinion seal. The repair facility further advised that the cause of failure was the pinion seal. The repair facility was to fax an estimate with the cause of failure to CARS. However, the faxed estimate did not have a cause of failure to the customer's vehicle listed.On August 7, 2015 at 4:04 p.m., in a recorded call the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was the pinion seal.On August 7, 2015 at 4:12 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract coverage, CARS was unable to assist with the repair to the customer's vehicle because the pinion seal is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVECOMPONENTS.” and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) and 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." and"Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component." Here, the pinion seal is not listed for coverage. The pinion (non-covered component) caused damage to the rear differential (covered component): therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to repair the pinion seal and any damage caused by the pinion seal.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." The pinion seal leak caused the damage to the rear differential.Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.For these reasons, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the August 7, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 12, 2015. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her 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[redacted]Attachment

Review: I bought an power train warranty from them and my transmission went out and they will not pay the price it's going to cost to have it rebuild they will only pay $790.00 of the $1500.00 when all I was to pay is $100.00 deductible for the repair but they are saying I have to pay the difference.Desired Settlement: Them to pay for the rebuild on my tranmision minus the $100.00 deductible

Business

Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2002 DODGE 1500 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I received your letter of April 10, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On January 23, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 28, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). The customer has Service Contract coverage through April 28, 2015. On April 7, 2015 at 9:25 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle, advising that there were transmission issues. On April 8, 2015 after the repair facility provided its cause of failure and extent of damage, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply a transmission for $650.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 4.8 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $240.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $790.00. CARS could supply the transmission as stated above and pay $140.00 toward labor or pay $790.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. CARS advised the repair facility to contact the customer, advise him of his options and contact CARS with his decision. On April 9, 2015 at 9:14 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to take the money for the allowance for the transmission repair. On that same date CARS issued an authorization number for the repair. This authorization number is valid for 180 days. Once we receive the final invoice from the repair facility indicating that the repairs are completed, CARS will pay the claim in the amount of $790.00 as stated above. By the customer’s signature on his Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read and understood its Terms and Conditions. The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions: “WARRANTY CLAIM PROCEDURE: C.A.R.S has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement transmission we used the cost of the transmission 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. Here, the customer chose to take the cash allowance of $790.00 rather than to have CARS supply the transmission for the repair. Any difference in part price that CARS could have supplied and the cost of the replacement parts that the repair facility is charging is the sole responsibility of the customer.

Review: I PURCHASED A WARANTY FROM THIS COMPANY AT THE TIME I PURCHASED THE CAR WHICH WAS ON 1/31/2015. I WAS NEVER INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT IT FIRST BEFORE IT BECOMES AFFECTIVE. ABOUT 2 WEEKS AFTER PURCHASE I NOTICED THE VOLTAGE IN THE CAR WOULD GO FROM 14.2 VOLT DOWN TO 12.6 AND BACK UP. I "THOUGHT" I WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE ALTERNATOR. SO I CALL THEM TO ASK IF THEY HAD SPECIFIC SHOPS THAT THEY DEALT WITH.THEY SAID THAT THEY DID NOT SHOW I HAD A WARANTY IN AFFECT BUT STILL TOOK MY NAME AND VIN NUMBER AND ASKED WHAT PROBLEM I WAS HAVING. WELL IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE THAT AGAINST ME LATER.WHEN THEY RECIEVED THE PAPER WORK FROM THE DEALER THEY DENID COVERAGE BECAUSE THE CAR NEEDED REPAIR. I NEVER SAID THE CAR NEED REPAIR NOR WAS IT AT A REPAIR SHOP. THEY ASSUMED THAT. IT TURNS OUT THAT AFET READING THE OWNES MANUAL THAT WAS A NORMAL CONDITION WITH THIS AND MANY OTHER NEWER CARS. THE ALTERNATOR CUT BACK ON VOTAGE WHEN NOT NEEDED. SO I FEEL THEYMADE A UNFAIR AND UNKNOGELAGABLE DECISION AND WAS BASING IT ON SOMEBODY THAT HAS NO KNOWALAGE OF THIS INSTEAD OF A LICENCED REPAIR SHOP.Desired Settlement: REINSTAE THE WARANTY

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 27, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer contacted CARS on February 16, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., advising that he purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 31, 2015 and the voltage was fluctuating. The customer further advised a CARS customer service representative that the vehicle may be experiencing alternator issues. During that telephone call, CARS thoroughly searched our database but could find no record of the selling dealer ever submitting to CARS a service contract application for the customer's vehicle. We advised the customer that a service contract is not active until we receive it with payment, process the service contract application, and approve it. We then referred the customer back to the selling dealer. Thereafter, on February 20, 2015, CARS received the customer's service contract application; however, said service contract application with payment was rejected because we were previously notified by the customer that his vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance. On that same day, we advised both the customer and the selling dealer in writing of the customer's service contract application rejection because CARS was notified that the customer’s vehicle was in need of repair. At no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract application. Directly above the signature line for the owner’s acceptance to terms, the service contract states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this application is received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase." It also states at Paragraph 2(e): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S."

Review: In November of 2013 I purchased a 2001 BMW 3251 and at that time purchased a 3 year warranty which was paid in full at that time. At that time I had enough time to briefly look over the contract that I did in fact sign at that time. The effective date of the contract was 11/22/2013 and the expiration date of the contract is 11/22/2016.I have since used the warranty one time and they did in fact pay what they were obligated to pay (so they say.) My complaint is this warranty should have in detail an appromiate amount the company would be obligated to pay for a covered part/labor. They lead you to believe that having this warrantly in the long run will save you a tremendous amount of money over the long which just isn't true! After talking with others concerning this company's warranty I came to the conclusion it just not that prudent to carry this coverage.I decided to contact the contract cancellation department this date 2/26/2014 and explore my options in canceling this warranty. I spoke with a fellow name [redacted] and was inform that since I paid for the 3 year warranty upfront which came to over ($2,000.00) instead of financing the amount for the warranty with the purchase price of the car I was not entitled to any type of refund and event if I had financed the warranty the dealer would have been the one entitle to the refund which I certainly understand.I took out a three year top of the line warranty from Cars and it seems the only party that has the right to cancel and not lose a dime from this warranty is Cars Protection Plus. I know Cars will reply like every other way they do in saying the consumer signed the contract saying he had read the contact and I did sign the contract but I certainly didn't understand once I paid for the warranty in full and I wasn't completely satisfied I would not be eligible for a refund under any circumstance.Desired Settlement: I would simply like to cancel the warranty and be refunded any monies after Cars Protection Plus has been compensated for what they have paid out under this warranty along with what ever they are entitled to as in the same terms as they would make a refund to a dealer assuming their warranty had been financed. I think this warranty is extremly unfair for those who pay the full amount upfront instead of financing the warranty.I now realize I should have financed the warranty!

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 26, 2014 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 14, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 22, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On February 10, 2014, at 9:36 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically an oil leak from the filter housing gasket, left lower ball joint arm, and leaking strut. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We also explained to the repair facility that the strut and any oil leak were non-covered components pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

We then went over the amount we could authorize for the covered components of the repair with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left lower ball joint arm for $86.99. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 1.4 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $90.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $126.00. The total value of the claim was $212.99. We explained that we could supply the left lower ball joint arm and pay

$126.00 towards labor or pay $212.99 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked

the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On February 10, 2014, the repair facility advised us that the customer chose to take the cash allowance towards the repair. After receiving the final invoice evidencing that the repairs were completed, CARS paid the repair facility $212.99 via credit on February 14, 2104 card pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On February 26, 2014, at 11:46 a.m., the customer spoke to a CARS’ service

representative to inquire about cancelling the service contract. During that telephone call, CARS advised the customer that CARS is not directed by any state statute in the state where he resided which superseded our cancellation provisions and that he was not entitled to any refund. We also explained that our state cancellation provisions are clearly stated in our service contracts.

By the customer’s signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: Cancellation Provisions: “There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at 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.”

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

The customer also stated in his complaint that he paid $2,000.00 for the service contract. As you can clearly see on the service contract, it lists the service contract purchase price as $1,699.00. CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers and the dealers have the right to make profits on the service contracts.

Furthermore, it is clearly stated in the customer’s executed service contract: “Covered Components: “Coverage limited to above components.” and “under Term and Conditions at Paragraphs 1(a) & (r): “Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure.” and “Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.”

Accordingly, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract executed by the customer, the struts and fluid leaks are not listed as covered components under the service contract. In addition, CARS stands behind its decision and the customer is not entitled to any refund.

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

Review: The week of January 5, 2014 the mechanic, who is working on my pickup, called C.A.R.S to open a claim as the transmission on vehicle needed to be replaced. During this week the mechanic determined the cost of a manufactured transmission and called C.A.R.S. The total cost out of my pocket to go this route would have been $2,200 (C.A.R.S. was not willing to pay the mechanic what it cost for him to buy a manufactured transmission). The other option was to have C.A.R.S. mail a used transmission with my out of pocket costs being around $500. So on January 10, 2014 the mechanic spoke to adjuster to advise him that I went with option two - shipping the used transmission. Adjuster stated part will arrive to mechanic on Tuesday the 14th. End of business on the 14th no part. Wednesday afternoon no part was received by the mechanic so I called customer service who stated part would be at the mechanic by the end of business. End of business on the 15th still no part. On Thursday I stopped at the mechanic (around 4pm) and there was still no part. At this time I called customer service who called the adjuster. According to customer service the adjuster stated the vendor said the part would be either received end of business on the 16th but if not on the 17th. If C.A.R.S. would have agreed to the price set by my mechanic (less the $100 deductible) for him to purchase a re-manufactured transmission my car would have been completed at this time. A week later and still no part from C.A.R.S. even though it was promised two days ago.Poor customer service, poor communication, and overall horrible experience that I will never ever buy a warranty through this company again. I would advise everyone to run before purchasing a warranty through C.A.R.S.Desired Settlement: I would like C.A.R.S. to pay the price my mechanic provided for him to purchase a re-manufactured transmission. Due to the issues involved I am not comfortable (or even trust) that the part that will even be delivered, whenever that maybe, will be in working condition.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 17, 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 August 14, 2010. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Limited Warranty (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on August 19, 2010 (See attached Service Contract).

On December 27, 2013 at 4:23 p.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the transmission. During the processing of the claim, we went over the options we could authorize for the claim and the customer chose to have the transmission shipped to the repair facility. We ordered the transmission from our supplier on January 7, 2014 and advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival time of the transmission was January 14, 2014.

On January 15, 2014 at 3:45 p.m., we were advised that the transmission had not arrived at the repair facility. Our supplier advised CARS that the transmission was delayed due to inclement weather and should arrive on January 16, 2014.

CARS was unaware that the transmission was not shipped by our supplier until we received your letter. Although CARS has no control over the shipment of said parts, CARS in a good will gesture contacted the customer upon receipt of your letter and offered assistance with the car rental. We have also spoken with the supplier who is working with CARS regarding the delay of the shipping of the transmission.

Please be advised that by his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions: “ADDITIONAL TERMS: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost any inconvenience caused by the loss of your vehicle, the gualitv of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have.” As stated above CARS has no control over our suppliers shipping dates; however we do have an obligation to the customer and we are working diligently to ensure that the customer’s vehicle is repaired as quickly as possible.

We would like to point out here that since the inception of the customer’s service contract, nine (9) claims were opened by repair facilities on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Of those nine (9) claims, CARS authorized seven (7) claims for payment by CARS, including the most recent claim. On three (3) claims, the customer was given a choice of taking our money allowance or having the parts shipped and the customer chose to take the money allowance. On four (4) of the claims, the customer was given a choice of taking the money allowance or have the parts shipped. The customer chose have the parts shipped. There were no issues with the shipped parts during the processing of those claims. Two (2) of the claims were not authorized by CARS because the failed components where not covered under the customer’s service contract pursuant to its terms and conditions.

Please be advised that to date, CARS has paid the total of $2,245.12 in six (6) claims towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle, as well as the additional amount of $1,042.80 in parts and labor, to be paid once the repairs are completed on the vehicle for the December 27, 2013 claim. To reiterate, we are also willing to assist the customer with rental, due to the delay of the shipping of the transmission.

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: