Sign in

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

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

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

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI believe CARS uses deceptive practices when selling their extended services and should be held accountable.
Regards,
*** ***

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 5, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI would like to respond in the following manner: On April 22, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value
Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on May 10, (the attached "Service Contract")
Since the inception the Customer’s Service contract, five (5) claims have been opened as follows:
DATE
May 31,
AMOUNT
$
CLAIM
Transmission
CLAIM STATUS
Closed - customer moved vehicle
$
$
September 25, August 8,
Water pump, rack, axles Paid - September 7, Radiator, intake manifold, Closed - customer moved
vehicle
Transmission
Radiator, intake manifold, Closed - No contact for
$
August 12, September 25,
Transmission
Intake Manifold, intake gasket, radiator__
days
Authorized - Supplied parts Authorized - labor____
$ 1,
TOTAL AMOUNT AUTHORIZED OR PAID:
On September 25, at 1:p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing intake manifold and intake gasket issuesWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facilityThe repair facility then advised us that they were hearing a
slight engine knock when the engine was runningWe asked the repair facility to fax an estimate to CARS for our review
On September 26, at 1:p.m., we advised the repair facility to inform the customer about the slight engine knock and give the customer the opportunity to have the noise evaluatedThe repair facility then advised that noise is coming from the valve train and is intermittentThe repair facility then advised that they had found the cause of a leak that the customer originally reportedThe radiator was cracked and would need to be replacedWe then asked for a revised estimate for our review
On September 29, at 10:a.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on his rental benefitsDuring that telephone call, a claims adjuster reviewed rental benefits with him
On September 30, at 10: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 intake manifold gasket for $125.00, the intake gasket for $and radiator for $We would also authorize $for fluids for the repairMitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $605.99, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $towards labor and fluids or pay $towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision
On October 1, at 11:a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer would like to use our supplied partsCARS then gave the repair facility the estimated arrival date of October 8, for the supplied parts and an authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicle
By the customer’s signature on his Ultimate Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the his service contractThe
customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket
components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously statedIt is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component
In addition, it states in the customer's at service contract at (m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.Swill not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have.” As you can see from the above information, CARS replied to the repair facility in a timely mannerCARS received the final repair estimates from the repair facility on Friday, September 26, and on Tuesday September 30, we provided options to the repair facility for the customer’s decision on how CARS could assist with September 25, claimPlease be advised that it requires time to receive, review estimates and find available parts that are best for the repair of the vehicleWe informed the repair facility on October 1, that the estimated arrival date would be October 8, If the customer was not satisfied with the length of time to process and ship the parts, he had the opportunity to take the cash allowance
The rental benefits of the customer’s service contract states: "You will be reimbursed twenty- five f$dollars for each eight hours of Mitchell QnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of three hundred f$dollars per claim, if proof of rental is providedDown time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide stated that the repair should take hours to complete; therefore, the customer is not entitled to rental benefits under the service contract
The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph (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 statedC.A.R.Sshall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor 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 vehicleIf 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 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor the Service Contract, less any claims paidThe refund shall be paid to the lien holderAfter days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at anytime by providing a written request to cancelThe lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid."
CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisionsHere, 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 contractTherefore, CARS is not directed by any state statute in Nevada to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contractIn addition, the claims paid exceed the amount CARS received for the customer's service contract, thus no refund is available
The customer's vehicle has service coverage through May 10, CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS will pay accordingly
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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

RE: COMPLAINT ID #*** CADILLAC STS VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.* *** Dear Ms***: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 31, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our
records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 3, On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 27, (See attached Service Contract)On March 17, at 3:p.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issuesWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility, specifically that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions and Claim Procedures, the repair facility must obtain the customer's permission to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure to determine if the failed component would be covered under the customer’s service contractSee copy of customer’s Service Contract with the claim procedures highlighted for your reviewDuring the processing of the claim on March 24, at 10:a.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the engine was town down and that the cause of failure to the engine was due to the head bolts being stretched on the right bank causing intermix in the oilThe repair facility also advised that the left bank had a failed exhaust valve spring which damaged the pistonWhen asked what caused the overheat condition; the repair facility advised that the head bolts being stretched on the right side were the cause of failureWe then advised the repair facility that we would not be able to offer any assistance with the engine repair because the head bolts are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contractand any damage caused by the failure of the head bolts are not covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service ContractLater that same day at 5:p.m., the repair facility again contacted CARS advising that the rocker arms failed and damaged the piston which caused the engine to overheatDue to the conflicting information received by the repair facility regarding the cause of failure and pursuant to the request of the customer, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer’s vehicle was necessary to verify the cause of failureThe independent inspection occurred on March 27, The independent inspector findings were as follows: The #intake valve seat dropped out into the combustion chamberThe #piston was broken in to piecesThere was impact damage to the #combustion chamber and also impact damage to the #cylinder wallThe independent inspector observed slight uneven spacing present at the head bolt threadsThe independent inspector attempted to screw said bolts into the known good head bolt block threaded hole, however, the head bolts started to bind and stripThere was evidence of the head gasket bypassing coolant at cylinders #and #adjacent to the water jacket at the head deckThere was no coolant intermix to the engine oilThe oil pan was not removed to verify any additional damagesThe engine water pump appeared normalThere was no sludge present at the cylinder head camshaft areas under the timing coverThere was no evidence of overheat and the inspector was unable to obtain mileage due to the level of teardownThere was no sludge or metallic contamination in the cartridge oil filterThe thermostat was boil tested and opened as designedThe cylinder heads were warped less than There were no signs of external coolant leaksThe independent inspector opined that the failure at the bank head bolts allowed head gasket breech, which caused higher operating temperature at cylinder #allowing the #intake seat to drop out, causing subsequent extensive damage to the piston, cylinder head and cylinder wallBased upon the independent inspector's findings, CARS contacted the repair facility on March 30, at 11:a.m., advising that CARS was standing behind its original decision and would not be able to offer any assistance because a non-covered component (head bolts) caused the failure to a covered component (engine)By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of her service contractIt is stated in the customer's service contract at Paragraph (q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a non-covered component." Here, the failure to the engine (covered component) was caused by the failure of the head bolts (non-covered component), which are external to the engine and not an internally lubricated partIn addition, 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 head bolts are not listed on the customer’s service contract as a covered componentCARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductibleAccordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract and therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the March 17, engine claimWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe 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

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.#intake valve seat dropped into the combustion chamber and broke the #piston and both are covered by warrantyNo where on the contract under engine/fuel system say dead bolts are not covered its state in bold timing belt, fuel injectors, EGR cooler and oil cooler are not coveredIf head bolts are a non covered component where does it state that on my warranty paperworkHow is anyone to know they are not covered until an inspector looks into the problemUnder terms and conditions Components and expenses not covered there is no wording or specific indication that these dead bolts are not coveredThere is there a listing of not covered items under each covered componentThe dead bolts going were a chain reaction of the engine going and this particular situation happens to call Cadillac's that year and modelThis is not a resolution to my situation and feel that something needs to be doneThe verbiage and technicality is whats the issue hereDiane from CARS referred me to *** as when I called the records conversation I had no idea where to begin with the claim and she helped meHow can this happen when you chose the shop and now there was questions of the mechanics findingsIf I can cover the dead bolts if it turns out to be CARS is correct with their contract in retrospect can CARS service the covered parts so I can have a car that can driveI am willing to coming to a resolution regarding this matterBut clarity and verbiage needs to be considered in this matterAs there is no relevance to the contract and the non covered part so called "Dead bolt"
Regards,
*** ***

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] My complaint is that I paidvso Mich for the extended warranty and yet t have multiple out of pocket expensesThe auto repair shot says it needs a new engineYet C.A.R.S wants the engine tore down at my expenseI'm already paying $out on things they do not coverI'd an auto repair place says it needs a new engine they should fix it and make the customer happyEven a used engine which they would pur in it would be fineA mechanic does what he does for a living cause he is good at his jobSo if he says it needs a new engine, it doesU shouldn't have to pay for a tare down
Regards,
Racheal Sopoliga

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.
 There is no resolution to deceptive business practices & contractual wording to the part of the consumer. The repair facility also disclosed to me that they have never dealt with a service warranty company that has to consult an "adjuster" before confirmation of covered mechanical parts. If there is a contract that is clear in it's mechanical cover & non-coverage parts then there should be no need for the consulting and/or further investigation of an adjuster to deem that coverage. It is normally covered or NOT covered. A business that will not provide contractual wording of what is NOT covered under it's contract is deceiving it's consumer when stating a general term of  "all lubricated components" in the section of it's contract. When initially signing the contract at the dealership, at time of purchase, I understood & agreed to my "the consumer's" understanding of "all lubricated components" of the transmission to include the "transmission line" which is a lubricated component to the "Transmission" which is supposedly covered under the "Value Plus" plan, that I pay for. 
Regards,
[redacted]

May 4,2017VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 DODGE RAM 1500VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated May 1, 2017, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On March 22, 2017, the customer and her husband purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer and her husband also applied for a Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on March 24, 2017 (the attached “Service Contract").On March 27, 2017 at 8:43 a.m., the customer advised CARS that on March 24, 2017, her vehicle began to experience fuel leak detection pump issues due to moisture in the gas tank. CARS went over her Service Contract coverage with her and advised that the fuel pump was listed for coverage under her Service Contract; however, the fuel leak detection pump was a non-covered component.On March 28, 2017 at 1:59 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then reviewed our claims procedures.On March 28, 2017 at 2:20 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the check engine light was displayed and running rough. The repair facility further advised that the codes for the reactive solenoid and evaporative purge solenoid were displayed. CARS advised that we would contact the repair facility after we spoke to the customer.On March 28, 2017 at 2:33 p.m., CARS again reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On March 28, 2017 at 2:33 p.m., the customer's husband advised CARS that the vehicle began to run poorly the weekend after the vehicle was purchased. The customer's husband advised that the check engine light was displayed on March 26, 2016.On April 3, 2017 at 4:49 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the #4 displacement cylinder solenoid had failed. CARS advised that we would review the claim and contact the repair facility.On April 4, 2017 at 9:09 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that #4 displacement cylinder solenoid was not covered under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, the repair of the displacement cylinder and any damaged caused by the displacement cylinder were the customer's responsibility to repair.On April 4, 2017 at 3:56 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine had two (2) dead cylinders. The repair facility advised that the original engine had been replaced with a used engine. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.On April 5, 2017 at 11:16 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine in the customer's vehicle had been replaced and the cross member had to be moved to drain the oil.On April 5, 2017 at 11:16 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the repair facility told her that the engine was the wrong engine for her vehicle. CARS advised that we would contact the repair facility for clarification.On April 6, 2017 at 2:40 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that three (3) cylinders were low on compression. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. The repair facility advised that the engine was wrong but could not explain what was wrong with the engine. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS was advised that the owner of the repair facility would contact us.On April 6, 2017 at 3:04 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the repair facility would need to find out if the engine was the proper engine for her vehicle by running numbers through Chrysler or checking for additional missing components. CARS advised that it was the responsibility of the repair facility to find the cause of failure to the vehicle.On April 7, 2017 at 4:33 p.m., the customer advised CARS that the engine in the vehicle was not the correct engine for her vehicle. The customer advised that the engine was for a 2005 Dodge Durango, not a 2006 or 2007 Dodge Ram 1500. The customer provided the engine number to CARS. The customer requested a return telephone call from CARS with our decision on assistance with the repair of her vehicle.On April 10, 2017 at 10:10 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS the engine in the customer's vehicle was not the correct engine. The customer advised that the engine was an engine for a 2005 Dodge Durango, not a 2006 or 2007 Dodge Ram 1500. The repair facility advised that the transmission would not properly bolt.On April 10, 2017 at 11:10 a.m., CARS advised the customer that the March 28, 2017 engine claim was denied due to an improper previous repair and her Service Contract was cancelled by CARS. CARS further advised that we would issue a refund of the full amount CARS received for the Service Contract.On April 10, 2017 at 11:20 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the March 28, 2017 engine claim was denied due to an improper previous repair and her Service Contract was cancelled by CARS. CARS further advised that we would issue a refund of the full amount CARS received for the Service Contract.On April 26, 2017, after receiving an executed Notice of Service Contract Cancellation and Release Form, CARS mailed check no. 243831 to the customer representing the monies received by CARS from the selling dealer for the customer's Service Contract.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer’s Service Contract states at Paragraph 1 (i): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOTCOVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair." Based on the findings of the repair facility provided to CARS on April 10, 2017, CARS determined that the failures to the customer's vehicle were caused by an incompatible engine being placed in the customer's vehicle during a previous improper repair.The customer's Service Contract also states at Paragraph 1(d) and 2 (g): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS does not provide any coverage for vehicle modified or altered AT ANY TIME beyond originals manufacturer's specifications with or without Your knowledge, including but not limited to following modifications: WHEEL/TIRES (not to manufacturer's specifications); lift/lowering kits; emission/exhaust; and engine." and "If at any time, it is determined Your vehicle is altered or modified from the original manufacturer's specifications, CARS would consider this a material misrepresentation. Upon discovery by CARS, CARS will cancel Your Service Contract and issue a monthly prorated refund of the amount received by CARS, less claims paid." On April 10, 2017, the repair facility advised CARS that the engine in the customer's vehicle was for a 2005 Dodge Durango; therefore, since the customer's vehicle is a Dodge Ram 1500, an alteration/modification was done to her vehicle as a result of previous improper repair. CARS was correct in not assisting with the repair of the customer's vehicle and cancelling her Service Contract with a full refund of the amount CARS received for her Service Contract.Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we stand behind our decision and are unable to assist with the March 28, 2017 engine claim for the reasons stated above.The customer's Service Contract coverage is now cancelled and no additional claims can be opened on behalf of her vehicle under any of CARS' Service Contracts.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason *. M[redacted] General Counsel[redacted]Attachment

I received your letter dated January 16, 2015, enclosing the customer's concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on August 30, 2011, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus...

Limited Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on August 31, 2011 (the attached "Service Contract"). FIRST CLAIM: On July 24, 2012 at 11:41 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility. Only July 25, 2012 at 2:06 p.m. CARS advised the repair facility that we could not assist with the repair of the vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The failure of a covered component (i.e. head gasket) was caused by the failure of a non-covered component (i.e. water valve). In addition, the vehicle showed signs of continued operation. On July 25, 2012 at 3:54 p.m. and 5:05 p.m., two (2) telephone calls were received from both the customer and the customer's father. In each individual telephone conversation it was thoroughly explained why the repairs were not covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. On July 26, 2012 at 9:01 a.m., CARS was advised by the repair facility that the timing cover was also leaking oil. CARS explained that the timing cover was also a non-covered component. SECOND CLAIM: On August 1, 2012 at 11:56 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility. Later this same day at 1:10 p.m., CARS was advised that the repair facility found the water pump leaking during the repair of the head gasket.After CARS received the estimate for repairs, CARS went over with the repair facility on August 1, 2012 the amount we could authorize for the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract as follows: CARS could supply a water pump for $57.07. Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide states that the repair should take 2.1 hours and the customer's service contract will pay $109.00 per hour; therefore, total labor allowed was $228.90. We explained that the total value of the claim was $285.97 and we could supply the water pump as stated above and pay $228.90 towards labor or pay $285.97 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer’s decision. That same day at 1:13 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to use our money allowance for the repairs. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair. When CARS received the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs to the customer's vehicle were completed, CARS paid the amount of $285.97 to the repair facility pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. THIRD CLAIM: On October 15, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., CARS received two telephone calls from a repair facility advising the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the master window switch, washer reservoir, and the window regulator roller. The repair facility was advised that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract the master window switch, washer reservoir, and window regulator roller were non- covered components and CARS was unable to assist with the claim. FOURTH CLAIM: On January 15, 2015 at 2:53 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claims procedure with the repair facility. Later that same day at 3:19 p.m., the repair facility advised they found the transmission fluid extremely low due to the transmission cooler leaking into the electric fan. The transmission seal rings failed, the mount was bad and the air filter was soaked due to overspray of transmission fluid. On January 15, 2015 at 3:49 p.m., CARS went over with the repair facility the amount we could authorize for the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract as follows: CARS could supply a transmission cooler for $180.99, transmission fluid for $48.00, and coolant for $28.00, as well as seals for $71.92. Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide states that the repair should take 1.6 hours and 1.4 diagnostic time totaling 3 hours, the customer's Service Contract will pay $125.00 per hour; therefore, total labor allowed was $375.00. We explained that the total value of the claim was $703.91 and we could supply the part, fluids, and seals as stated above and pay $375.00 towards labor or pay $703.91 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with their decision. On January 15, 2015 at 4:54 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer asking why we were using aftermarket parts and requested rental benefits. It was thoroughly explained that CARS would be shipping OEM parts for the vehicle pursuant to the customer's Service Contract. Additionally, the customer was advised that the rental expenses are covered for every eight (8) hours of labor time. In this case the time for labor was 3 hours per Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide; therefore, no rental benefits were available. That same day at 5:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to use our money allowance for the repairs. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair. When CARS receives the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs to the customer’s vehicle were completed, CARS will pay the amount of $703.91 to the repair facility, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.By the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, he acknowledge that he has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Other than those components listed above, no other components are covered bv the limited service contract regardless of the cause of failure. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus. Inc.” With regard to the third claim opened on October 15, 2013, the master window switch, washer reservoir, and window regulator roller are non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract.Additionally under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract it states: “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIMS PROCEDURES: C.A.R.S. has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.”In summary, the customer’s Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the teardown, filters, fluids, taxes, and the difference in labor rates.CARS service contracts are to assist with covered mechanical failures; they are not intended to pay 100% for customer’s repairs. The customer is also responsible for any and all costs relating to the teardown of the vehicle. After a claim is authorized by CARS the labor time allowable for the repair does include the cost to replace and repair. Any difference in the parts price that CARS could have supplied and the cost of the replacement parts that the repair facility is charging the customer is the sole responsibility of the customer. Here, CARS has paid a total of $285.97 and authorized the amount of $703.91 towards the transmission cooler repair.For all these reasons above information, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations regarding all of the claims on the customer's vehicle, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: Complaint No. [redacted]2002 JEEP LIBERTY VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms[redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I...

would like to respond in the following manner: On December 26, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on December 30, 2014 (see attached Service Contract).Two (2) claims have been opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle since the inception of her Service Contract.First Claim: On March 19, 2015 at 1:50 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing front differential and axle issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On March 19, 2015 at 2:00 p.m., the repair facility advised that there was a noise in the front differential and the rear axle moved up and down. CARS again reviewed our claim procedures.CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.On March 20, 2015 at 10:35 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the prop shaft and rear right front axle were worn. The repair facility advised that there were no problems with the rear differential. The repair facility then faxed an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle to CARS.On March 23, 2015 at 9:14 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the front right prop for $275.00 and rear front axle for $65.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.7 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $102.00. 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 $342.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $2.00customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $102.00. 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 $342.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $2.00 towards labor or pay $342.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised that they would inform us of the customer's decision.On March 24, 2015 at 2:36 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of her choice. On March 24, 2015 at 2:53 p.m., CARS provided an authorization for the repair facility to begin work on the customer's vehicle.Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS paid the repair facility $342.00 via credit card towards the repair of the customer's vehicle. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On October 13, 2016 at 9:59 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that thecustomer's vehicle was experiencing spark plug, #1 ignition coil and catalytic converter issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On October 13, 2016 at 10:43 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that spark plugs and the catalytic converter were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. CARS then went over the #1 ignition coil portion of the claim with the repair facility. We could supply the #1 ignition for $18.44. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .5 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $30.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained the total value of claim ($48.44) was less than the customer’s deductible of $100.00; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle. The claim was then closed.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, during the processing of the March 19, 2015 claim, the customer chose to take the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicle.On October 13, 2016 at 1:19 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she would like to cancel her Service Contract coverage. CARS advised that her Service Contract had been active for twenty-two (22) months and CARS paid a claim for $324.00; therefore there was no refund available for early termination.It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVECOMPONENTS." Also, as stated under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract at Paragraph 1 (a): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure. Here the spark plugs and catalytic converter are not listed as covered components under the customer's Service Contract. Therefore, it is the customer’s responsibility to pay for these repairs.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.In her consumer complaint the customer states that she would like a refund of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested." and "After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated." Here, the customer cancelled her Service Contract on October 13, 2016 which is greater than twenty (20) days from the date of Service Contract approval date of December 30, 2015.The Service Contract states: ADDITIONAL STATE DISCLOSURES: THIS IS NOT AN INSURANCE POLICY [redacted]: If a claim has been made under the contract during the first 20 business day (free look period) and the contract is returned, the provider shall refund to the contract holder the full purchase price less any claims paid. The applicable free look time period on the Service Contract shall pertain only to the original Service Contract purchaser.After the free look period, a Service Contract holder may cancel the contract at any time and the provider shall refund to the contract holder 100% of the unearned pro rata provider fee, less any claims made. A reasonable administrative fee may be surcharged by the provider in an amount not to exceed $50.00.Here, the customer has had Service Contract coverage for twenty-two months and CARS paid a claim in the amount of $342.00; therefore, she is not entitled to any refund of her Service Contract.Please note that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to selling dealers. The selling dealer had a right to mark up the cost of the Service Contract for a profit. Therefore, what the customer paid for her Service Contract (i.e. $2,195.00) is not what CARS received for the cost of her Service ContractThe customer has Service Contract coverage through December 30, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of 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 question, please contact my office.Sincerely,

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
U
[redacted]as 5 different mechanics told me that the engine needed to be replaced. I ask this company to come out and inspect the engine and they refused. The head if the service department told this adjuster from this company that the repair that they approved did not fix the problem, the car was not properly maintain by the previous owner and we did oil changes but it did not help the problem. The adjuster told me well you drove the car in. Yes I did but also had to pray that I did not have to stop because every time I had to stop the car overheated so I did not drive it in with out definite issues.  This company is putting me at risk by not doing the repairs these mechanics advised. It is not my fault the owner sold this car like this nor am I to be punished.  When they gave me this warranty that I paid for they accepted the problems I may have do to the other owners neglect.  I feel that I paid them in good faith to take car of my car and no I had the good faith that they would take care of my car.  I do not see that they are doing what I paid for in regards to fixing my car properly.  As the mechanics told me this car may be fine for a year if I am lucky with this bandaid repair. So what I am suppose to sell this car to someone else and hope they do not have problems. quite honestly I think they refused to look at the engine cause they may have to admit they need to replace the engine. Honestly that is what I have been suggested to do, do you consider this good practice by this warranty company because I sure do not accept the offer that they are giving me.  I will still have to replace the engine and this car will never be worth what I paid for it, and if someone does a car fax this information will be given to them so do you think I can sell it, no so I am out 6 grand and another 4 grand to replace the engine on my own.

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 12, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 19, 2015. On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value...

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

1 am in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract...

(48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 15, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). On February 24, 2015 at 10:18 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing intake manifold and rack and pinion issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. After CARS reviewed the estimate faxed to us from the repair facility (see attached), CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the intake manifold for $550.00 and we could pay $11.00 to the repair facility for gaskets. We could also supply the rack and pinion for $462.00. We could also authorize $8.70 for fluids for the repair. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 8.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $600.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,631.70, and we could supply the parts and assist with the cost of fluids and gaskets as stated above; and pay $519.70 towards labor or pay $1,631.70 towards the repair of your choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision. On February 24, 2015 at 3:45 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to inquire about the claim allowance and the supplied parts. On February 24, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like to have the parts shipped to the repair facility. On February 25, 2015 at 8:43 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility on the estimated shipping time of the parts and gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs on the vehicle. By the customer's signature on his Ultimate Value Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f):                 “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the supplied rack and pinion are remanufactured parts and the intake manifold is a used part. The supplied parts are covered pursuant to the customer's Service Contract through the service coverage's expiration date of January 16, 2019. To reiterate the above claim information, the customer had two (2) choices when his claim was processed: 1) have CARS ship the intake manifold and rack and pinion and receive $519.70 towards labor; or 2) accept the amount of $1,631.70 as a money allowance towards the repair of his vehicle. It was the customer's choice to have CARS supply the intake manifold and rack and pinion for the repair of his vehicle. Accordingly, CARS authorized the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract. It states in the customer’s at service contract at 2 (m): ‘PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." If the customer was not satisfied with the length of time to process and ship the parts, he had the opportunity to take the cash allowance. For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to offer any further assistance for the February 24, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, the supplied intake manifold and the rack and pinion that CARS selected for the customer's vehicle are pursuant to the terms and conditions and covered through the customer's Service Contract’s expiration date of January 16, 2019. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

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

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

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

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

engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
____________________________________________________
 
 
I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: Our records show that on August 1, 2014, you purchased the above-referenced vehicle from [redacted]. On that same date, you also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 8, 2014 (the attached Service Contract).
Since the inception of your service contract two (2) claims have been opened by repair facilities on behalf of your vehicle as follow:
FIRST CLAIM: On August 15, 2014 at 10:40 a.m., a claim was called in by [redacted] at [redacted] advising that your vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply a water pump for $43.12 and allow $20.00 toward fluids for the
repair. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.8 hours to complete, and your service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $108.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $71.12, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $8.00 towards labor or pay $71.12 towards the repair of your choice. You chose to take the cash allowance toward the repair of your vehicle. On August 20, 2014 after receiving the final repair invoice, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $71.12 via check. The claim was then closed.
SECOND CLAIM: On October 9, 2014 at 1:36 p.m., a claim was called in by [redacted] at [redacted] advising that your vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures and advised [redacted] to obtain your permission to tear down your vehicle to the point of failure and call or fax us with the repair facility's findings.
On October 13, 2014 at 1:09 p.m., in a recorded telephone call [redacted] advised CARS that the crank key broke off, damaging the key way, which caused the timing of your vehicle to be off; consequently damaging the heads and valves. [redacted] also faxed the cause of failure to CARS (attached). On that same date at 1:52 p.m. CARS advised [redacted] that pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract the crank key and damage caused by it was non-covered; therefore, we were unable to assist with the engine claim.
On October 13, 2014 at 2:32 p.m., our claims manager also explained in detail the claim with you. Also, on that same day a CARS' customer service representative reviewed your service contract with you and explained that pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract, the crank key is a non­covered component under your coverage. The customer service representative further advised that you were not eligible for rental benefits under your service contract.
By your signature on your service contract, you acknowledged that you read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1 (q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a non-covered component." Here, the repair facility chosen by you to repair your vehicle found that the failure of a non-covered component (i.e. crank key), caused the failure of a covered component (i.e. engine).
It is stated in your service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the crank key is not listed as covered components on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of these parts.
The rental benefits of your service contract states:                  "The   Service Contract Holder will be
reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." Here, you are not entitled to rental assistance because the failures to your vehicle were not covered by your service contract.
Furthermore, under your 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 you what is specifically covered and your financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.
Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of your service contract. Therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the October 9, 2014 engine claim for all the reasons stated above.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 9, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on August 30, 2014 and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 120,566 miles on the odometer. On that same...

date, she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was received with payment and approved by CARS on September 5, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).
On September 17, 2014 at 11:25 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle advising of engine issues. The repair facility also stated that the vehicle currently registered 120,720 miles on the odometer, which means that 154 miles were driven on the vehicle since the date of purchase. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised them to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure and provide CARS with its cause of failure and extent of damage, so that we could determine if the failed components would be covered under the customer's vehicle.
On September 26, 2014 at 2:46 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the #1 exhaust valve was burnt. When asked what caused the valve to burn; however, the repair facility could not verify. We then explained to the repair facility to get the customer's permission to send out cylinder head to verify extent of damage and call us back with results. During that telephone call, we explained to the repair facility that an independent inspection of the customer’s vehicle may be necessary to verify their findings.
On October 2, 2014 at 3:43 p.m., we received a telephone call from repair facility advising that the vehicle needed new valves as they were worn, cracked and one (1) was chipped. The repair facility also stated that there was carbon buildup, but was not sure whether the carbon was the cause of failure. As a result, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the vehicle was necessary to verify that carbon build up, as found by the repair facility, was the exact cause of failure and also determine the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.
The independent inspection occurred on October 7, 2014. The independent inspection found that one of the exhaust valves for the #1 cylinder had a piece of it burned away. There was
evidence of carbon accumulation on the valve seat. There were no other burned valves evident and
no signs of piston or cylinder wall damage. The head gasket was intact. There were no signs of recent repairs or new parts installed on the engine. The independent inspector found that the failure to the engine was due to the burning of the #1 cylinder exhaust valve due to improper valve seating from carbon accumulation over time and miles and continued operation, which failure was in progress prior to 154 miles.
At this time I would like to address the customer’s concerns regarding the competence of the independent inspector. For many years, CARS has been using a well-known, experienced and quality nationwide inspection company to perform independent inspections. Their inspectors are well trained with extensive mechanical expertise and service contract administrative backgrounds.
During the inspection of the customer’s vehicle, the inspector only turned the key in the ignition to illuminate the dashboard to obtain the accurate mileage on the vehicle and to determine if any warning lights were illuminated, as well. This procedure occurs in all inspections so that pertinent information can be obtained.
Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on her Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. The service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph l(p):             “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure caused by carbon,
sludge, water ingestion or combustion leaks.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer found that carbon build up was the cause of failure and the independent inspector verified these failures. Therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer any assistance with the repair to the customer's vehicle pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2005 JEEP GR CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated August 1, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I...

would like to respond in the following manner: On September 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 21, 2015.First Claim: On March 11, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On March 11, 2016 at 3:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they do not perform internal engine repairs. CARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, the customer must move her vehicle. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On March 29, 2016 at 1:31 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.On March 29, 2016 at 1:44 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had codes for the catalytic converter and had used ten (10) quarts of oil in 3,000 miles. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear- down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.On April 1, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they cleaned the PVC system and advised the customer to drive her vehicle to see if the issues were still present. CARS advised the repair facility to open a new claim if the customer returned her vehicle. The claim was then closed.Third Claim: On July 29, 2016 at 4:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS thecustomer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 29, 2016 at 4:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine is using three (3) quarts of oil in 6,500 miles. The repair facility further advised that the engine was smoking and the catalytic converter code was displayed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear- down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.At this time CARS is waiting for the repair facility to let us know the cause of failure and the extent of damage so that we may move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.By the customer's signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIMPROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.The Service Contract states under Terms and 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS." The Service Contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun.” and "If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by CARS, an authorization number will be issued for the repair..." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the Service Contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. The repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle never provided CARS with its findings or an estimate prior to the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, in the customer's Revdex.com complaint, she is requesting a refund for repairs; however, CARS’ claim procedures were not followed; therefore, CARS is unable to refund the customer for any repairs performed by the repair facility.Under the customer's Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform Mr. [redacted] what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage as stated in the above paragraphs. CARS cannot move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle until the repair facility provides us with the cause of failure to the engine and extent of damages to the customer’s vehicle. As it currently stands, the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle is neither approved nor denied by CARS.The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 21, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's 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 question, please contact my office.Jason P. [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

VIA: EMAIL/WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania [redacted]RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 BMW 750LI VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letters dated December 7, 2016, and December 8, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer's additional complaints and respond as follows:On December 2, 2016, the customer emailed CARS the Vehicle Care Package and Multi-Point Inspection Form prepared by BMW of [redacted]On December 7, 2016, CARS advised the customer in the attached letter that a claim must be opened on behalf of her vehicle so that CARS can determine if the repair to the customer's vehicle would be covered under her Service Contract. CARS also sent the attached check for the customer's towing expenses.On December 7, 2016 at 2:39 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS of the issues with the customer's vehicle. At this time, the customer's claim is being processed by CARS. CARS is currently waiting on the repair facility to get back to us with an estimate for repairs.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

August 18, 2017VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 HONDA ACCORD VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 2017, enclosing...

the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 23, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 30, 2016 (the attached “Service Contract").On July 27, 2017 at 3:04 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner, window regulator and wiper linkage bushing issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 28, 2017 at 1:11 p.m., CARS again reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility and then went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply an air conditioner compressor for $246.72. ProDemand labor guide stated the repair should take 2.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $168.00. The claim was also subject to $100.00 deductible. We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $314.72. CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the part as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $314.72 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would assist with the labor in the amount of $68.00. We also advised the repair facility that the window regulator and wiper linkage bushing were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, the window regulator and wiper linkage bushing repairs would be the customer's sole responsibility to repair. The repair facility advised that they would contact CARS with the customer's decision.On August 1, 2017 at 1:13 p.m., CARS returned a telephone call to the customer and spoke with the customer's mother. The customer's mother was unhappy with the claim allowance and requested cancellation of the Service Contract and was then transferred to the cancellation department, who advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer was not entitled to any refund.On August 1, 2017 at 2:31 p.m., CARS returned a telephone call from the customer's mother requesting specific information regarding the claim; however, since this individual was not the customer, CARS advised that we would need permission from the customer to speak with her regarding the claim.This was the last communication CARS had regarding the July 27, 2017 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract under the Acceptance to Terms, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states at: ‘COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." Also, at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: COMPONENTS NOT LISTED REGARDLESS OF FAILURE." Here, the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle advised that the window regulator and the wiper linkage bushing were failed; however, they are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract. Therefore, those repairs would be the sole responsibility of the customer to repair.It is also stated in the customer's Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above, neither the repair facility nor the customer contacted CARS with the customer's decision on how to proceed with the claim.Additionally, the customer's Service Contract states at Paragraphs 5 (a) & (b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel Your Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. This Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested. After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated..." Here, since it was over 20 days from the effective date of the customer's Service Contract, he is not entitled to any refund of his Service Contract.The customer also states in his complaint that he purchased “bumper to bumper" coverage for his vehicle. To the contrary, the Service Contract that the customer purchased is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates, labor time and the $100.00 deductible. Therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs or pay for the repair of non-covered components.As you can see from the above information, CARS was willing to authorize the air conditioner compressor repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $314.72 pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract. If the repairs to the customer's vehicle are not yet completed, please have the repair facility contact CARS to advise of the customer's decision in order to proceed with the July 27, 2017 claim.The customer has vehicle coverage on his vehicle until November 30, 2019; therefore, if his vehicle incurs any further mechanical issues and it is determined that the failed components are covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim pursuant to the Covered Components and 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 my office.Sincerely, Jason *. M[redacted]General Counsel

Check fields!

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

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

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: AUTO WARRANTY PROCESSING SERVICE

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

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc.



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

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