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)

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

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is not 100%   satisfactory to me however is an acceptable compromise. 
Regards,
[redacted]

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 ACCEPT IT IN PART. I DID CALL AND LEFT MESSAGE ON NOV. 28 DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING THE HOLIDAY.  AND I ALSO CALLED [redacted] WHO REPLACED THE STARTER IN 2013 which at the end of OCT 2014 IT WAS TOWED THERE FOR THE SAME PROBLEM, they said that it started every time they did and that they CAN NOT HELP ME WITH IT THIS TIME.  SO I HAVE TO FILE ONE AGAINST [redacted].  BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID TO BRING THEM THE OLD STARTER...     I HOPE TO SEE THE CHECK CARS SENT TO US SOON!    THANK YOU

VIA: EMAIL/WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 AUDI A4 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated December 14, 2016, and respond as follows: Pursuant to the customer's request, CARS had an independent inspection performed on the customer's vehicle. The inspection occurred on December 14, 2016. The independent inspector found that the TCM was located in the transmission pan. The connector is part of the unit and comes out of the rear cover. The shop presented to the inspector a documented Code P0722, which was the output speed shaft sensor circuit. The shop also performed a diagnostic of the TCM and determined the unit was faulty. The TCM was already removed from the transmission during the inspection and the inspector could not verify the fault code with the battery being disconnected. The TCM could not be tested due to disassembly. The independent inspector opined that in order to access the TCM it was not necessary to disassemble the transmission, the transmission pan just needed to be removed. The inspector verified that the TCM in the customer's vehicle was located inside of the transmission pan and not inside the transmission housing. The inspector was not able to verify the TCM being faulty due to not being installed in the vehicle. Attached please find photographs verifying that the transmission was not disassembled or removed from the vehicle and also verifying that the TCM is separate from the transmission housing and not an internally lubricated component inside the transmission.To reiterate, the customer's Service Contract states at: "COVERED COMPONENTS (Transmission): Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing; torques converter; bands; pump; pump housing; carrier assembly; planetary gears; chain; drums; ..." Additionally the customer's service contract states: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." Furthermore, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure."The customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the customer's Service Contract inform him what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, difference in labor rate, labor time, shop supplies, programming, non-covered components, maintenance items and taxes.As you can see from the independent inspector's findings, the TCM is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission. In addition as stated in my original letter, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle advised CARS that the TCM is a separate unit and can be purchased separately.For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind its original decision and is not able to offer any assistance with the September 13, 2016 mechanical claim, because the TCM requiring repair is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission and is not covered component pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.At this time, CARS is requesting that the Revdex.com mark this complaint as answered. Should you have any further questions, please contact my office. Thank you.Sincerely,

August 3, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 3, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced consumer...

complaintPlease be advised that CARS has resolved all the issues regarding this complaint with the customer.Therefore, at this time, CARS is requesting that you mark this complaint as resolved. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason *. M[redacted]General Counsel

COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated April 25, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced...

vehicle on April 22, 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 May 5, 2015.On January 8, 2016 at 1:37 p.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle was experiencing a head gasket issue. CARS reviewed Service Contract coverage, claim procedures with the customer. CARS further advised that the customer is responsible for diagnostic and tear-down costs for her vehicle.On January 8, 2016 at 1:58 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she was ready to move forward with having her vehicle torn down. CARS reviewed Service Contract coverage and claim procedures with the customer.Fifty five days later, on March 3, 2016 at 1:52 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising the customer's vehicle was experiencing cylinder head issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.On March 3, 2016 at 3:43 p.m., we again advised the repair facility of 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 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. The repair facility advised CARS that they would telephone the customer regarding further diagnostic/tear-down.On March 4, 2016 at 7:58 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on February 3, 2016 because of losing coolant. The repair facility further advised that the head gaskets were leaking, the coolant was low, there was compression in the radiator and the heads were warped. The repair facility advised CARS that they would fax an estimate of repair and warpage measurements.Twenty one days later, on March 25, 2016 at 11:53 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine was full of sludge. CARS advised the repair facility to fax pictures of the engine to us. The repair facility advised that it that would get to it as soon as soon as possible but it might not be that day.On March 31, 2016 at 2:39 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that sludge could have caused the issues with the customer's vehicle.On March 31, 2016 at 4:03 p.m., after a management review of the picture provided by the repair facility, CARS advised the repair facility to move forward with the tear-down of the customer's vehicle. We further advised that if any further issues were found, CARS would not be able to assist with repair if it was related to sludge.On April 8, 2016 at 3:12 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we need the warpage on the heads. The repair facility advised CARS that they had not heard from the machine shop. The repair facility advised that the head gasket failed on the left side and the right side head gasket appeared to be cracked. CARS advised that we would need cause of failure in order to move forward with the claim.On April 11, 2016 at 4:50 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On April 15, 2016 at 10:10 a.m., CARS telephoned Brian to get the status of the heads. The repair facility advised that they had not heard back from the machine shop and they would keep us informed.On April 25, 2016 at 4:11 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On April 26, 2016 at 10:56 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that she was unhappy that we were not providing a new engine in her vehicle since it was full of sludge.On April 26, 2016 at 1:00 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On April 26, 2016 at 2:19 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that both heads were warped .006. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle needed the head gaskets replaced.On April 26, 2016 at 2:28 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that she wants a new engine because of sludge in the engine. CARS advised that we were basing the repair off the repair facility’s estimate.On April 26, 2016 at 2:58 p.m., the customer’s husband telephoned CARS to advise that the customer’s vehicle needed an engine. CARS then reviewed the estimate from the repair facility with him.On April 27, 2016 at 9:16 a.m., CARS went over the estimated provided by the repair facility to CARS with the repair facility. CARS then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows:We could supply the parts and fluids as follows:Head $102.51 Timing Set $ 28.85 Fluids $ 43.90 Decking $110.00 Total $285.26ProDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 10.6 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour.Total labor $742.00.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 $1027.26, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $642.00 towards labor or pay $924.26 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised that they would like the head set shipped and the cash allowance on all other parts.On April 27, 2016 at 11:04 a.m., the customer advised that she did not want any repairs performed on her vehicle until she contacted CARS. The customer advised that she wanted a new engine for her vehicle. On April 27, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS advised the repair that the customer advised us not to send the head gaskets until she contacted CARS. The repair facility advised that they would speak to the customer. On April 27, 2016 at 5:01 p.m., the customer again advised that she would like a new engine. CARS advised her that the lower part of the engine did not fail and an engine replacement would not be covered under her 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 contained therein. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions under Paragraph 1 (p}: "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure caused sludge or water ingestion" Here the customer's repair facility advised CARS and provided the attached photograph showing that the engine was full of sludge. Based on the findings of the repair facility, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, a replacement engine is NOT covered under the customer's Service Contract. CARS is able to assist with the repair of the cylinder head since it was not caused by sludge. However, if the customer would like to replace the engine she may take the cash allowance and use it towards the replacement of the engine. To reiterate, CARS can only pay for the repair of the cylinder heads; therefore, the total amount we can pay towards the repair of the customer's vehicle is $924.26.The customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to theThe customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does 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, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.The customer’s Service Contract expires on May 5, 2016; therefore, upon completion of the cylinder head repair or May 5, 2016, whichever occurs first, the customer’s vehicle will no longer have any Service Coverage under CARS.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 [redacted] General Counsel

June 17, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID# [redacted]2004 CHEVY EQUINOX LSVIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated July 14, 2017, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 14, 2017. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Independent Service Contract (Month to Month Coverage). In addition, the customer provided a credit card number, V code and expiration date and executed the service contract application.Pursuant to the RECURRING PAYMENT TERMS and ACCEPTANCE TO TERMS of the customer's Independence Service Contract and Payment Authorization Form, CARS debited the credit card on April 26, 2017 with the credit card information supplied by the customer. The customer's Independence Service Contract was approved by CARS on April 26, 2017, once CARS received confirmation that the payment was successful.Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS charged the customer's credit card within seven days of the billing date for May 2017 and June 2017.On July 13, 2017 at 9:29 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing valve cover, upper and lower intake gaskets, fuel tank pressure sensor, thermostat seal and water pump issues. CARS then reviewed our claims procedures with the repair facility.On July 13, 2017 at 10:56 a.m. CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS was only able to assist with the repair of the water pump. CARS advised the repair facility that we could not assist with the thermostat and hoses since the thermostat had not failed and the replacement was just a recommendation by the repair facility. CARS further advised that the sensors, valve cover and upper and lower intake gaskets were not covered under the customer’s Service Contract.On July 13, 2017 at 11:48 a.m. CARS went over the amount that we could assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle with the repair facility as follows: CARS advised the repair facility that we could supply the water pump for $28.29. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $84.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the water pump as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $12.29 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would not be able to assist with the labor due to the $100.00 deductible. The repair facility advised that would get to us with the customer's decision.On July 13, 2017 at 1:29 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could assist with the repair of the vehicle with the customer. CARS reviewed that the thermostat was a recommended by the repair facility but it had not failed; therefore, we were unable to offer any assistance with the thermostat. CARS then went over the covered components with the customer. The customer then requested to speak with our cancellation department.On July 13, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she would like to cancel her Service Contract coverage. CARS emailed a Service Contract Cancellation Form to the customer. The customer returned the executed Service Contract Cancellation Form to CARS and her Service Contract was cancelled effective July 26, 2017, which would be the customer's next billing date for her Independence Service Contract (Month to Month Coverage].By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states Service Contract 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. Here, valve cover gasket, upper and lower intake gaskets, fuel tank pressure sensor are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to repair/replace the valve cover gasket, upper and lower intake gasket and fuel tank pressure sensor.The Service Contract states at Paragraph 2 (i): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: Coverage is limited to the repair or replacement of any covered component found to be defective beyond manufacturer's specifications, including failures resulting from normal wear and tear."Here, the replacement of the thermostat was recommended by the repair facility; however, it was not found to be defective beyond manufacturers' specifications. The thermostat did not fail; therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair/replacement of the thermostat.The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we used 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. Here, CARS is able to supply was able to supply a water pump for the repair of the customer's vehicle for $28.29 or assist with the repair in the amount of $12.29, after the deductible was applied.The customer's Service Contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS LABOR: The authorized time for a covered repair will be based on the ProDemand 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." Here, during the processing of the mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle advised CARS that the labor rate for the repair of the customer's vehicle was $135.00 per hour. ProDemand labor guide allows 1.4 hours for the replacement of the water pump; therefore, the total value of the labor portion of the thermostat claim was $84.00. Here, the customer would be responsible for any amount over $60.00 per hour for the labor costs and any labor time over 1.4 hours associated with the repair of her vehicle.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, non-covered components, the difference in labor rates and deductible.The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 26, 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 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

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] DODGE 1500 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated May 29, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 24, 2013, 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 15, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”). On January 6, 2014, at 10:59 a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing tensioner pulley, air conditioning, starter and oil gauge issues. We then went over our claim procedures. The repair facility further advised that there were 22 inch rims on the customer's vehicle. On January 7, 2014, at 10:59 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the rims on the customer's vehicle were actually 26 inch rims. On January 7, 2014, at 11:26 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the rims on her vehicle were 26 inch rims and that she installed the rims. On January 7, 2014 at 11:47 a.m., CARS advised the customer that her Service Contract had been cancelled and the January 6, 2014 mechanical claim made on behalf of her vehicle was denied because the rims on her vehicle were modified from the manufacturer’s specifications. CARS further advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, she was not eligible for a refund from CARS. On January 7, 2014 at 11:48 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer's claim was denied due to oversized rims on the vehicle and her Service Contract was cancelled. CARS then closed the claim. On January 8, 2014 at 1:43 a.m., CARS' office manager reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with the customer. Our office manager explained that CARS denied the mechanical claim and cancelled her Service Contract due to oversized rims on the vehicle. On January 8, 2014 at 1:53 a.m., a customer service representative advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, CARS does not provide refunds for service contracts when the service contract is cancelled for alterations/modifications of a vehicle. The customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on November 15, 2013. It was not until the processing of the January 6, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. rims) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer’s specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall void the Service Contract." Additionally, "CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS." Finally, it states at Paragraph 5(c): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: 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." Here, on January 7, 2104, the customer advised CARS that she installed 26 inch rims on her vehicle; therefore she is not entitled to a refund of her Service Contract. To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the January 6, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle. Here, on January 7, 2014, the customer advised CARS that she installed the larger rims on her vehicle. The alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer’s specifications and can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle. CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers and/or repair facilities, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer’s Service Contract is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS' service contracts. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer is not entitled to any refund from CARS. 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

I received your letter of April 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On October 31, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24...

Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 3, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). On March 25, 2015 at 2:21 p.m., the customer’s wife advised a CARS customer service representative that a repair facility advised her that the above-referenced vehicle was experiencing upper timing gasket and bracket gasket issues. Our customer service representative then reviewed the service coverage for the vehicle and our claim procedures with her. On March 26, 2015 at 2:22 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing ignition coil, bracket gasket, and timing gasket issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle was not at the repair facility. CARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract that the vehicle must be at the repair facility in order for a claim to be opened on behalf of the vehicle. On March 26, 2015 at 3:04 p.m., a CARS customer service representative again reviewed our claim procedures with the customer's wife. CARS then advised that under the customer's Service Contract ignition coils are listed as covered components; however, seals and gaskets are non-covered components under the Service Contract. The above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issues. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer's service contract. Please be advised that by the customer's signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract under terms and conditions 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 stated at Paragraph 3(b): "The repair facility must call C.A.R.S. at 888-335-6838 to open a claim.” The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was reviewed with the customer’s wife during telephone conversations on March 25, 2015 and March 26, 2015. Claim procedures were also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). It is clear that the customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in his service contract or on his identification card to properly open a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component. Additionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks. Oil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph 1 (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Here, even if the customer properly opened a claim as outlined on the Service Contract, CARS would not be able to assist with the replacement of any gaskets or any damaged caused by fluid leaks. The engine coils are listed on the customer's Service Contract as covered components. In her complaint the customer's wife states that that the engine is covered but not the parts of the engine. All of the parts covered under the customer's Service Contract are listed under "COVERED COMPONENTS” on the front of the customers' Service Contract. The attached Service Contract highlights the covered components listed under the "ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM". The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear- down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. Therefore, it is the customer’s responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down charges. 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.” Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. 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 his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. If the customer's vehicle has not yet been repaired, the customer should take his vehicle to a repair facility to have a claim opened on behalf of his vehicle as outlined on his Service Contract and contract identification card. CARS will review all information provided by the repair facility to determine if CARS is able to assist with the repair of 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.

June 12,2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID# [redacted]2006 CADILLAC SRXVIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated June 12, 2017, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on May 30, 2017. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 31, 2017. (See attached “Service Contract")On June 1, 2017 at 1:55 p.m., CARS reviewed her Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures with the customer. The customer advised CARS that her vehicle was not experiencing any mechanical issues.On June 6, 2017, the customer advised CARS that she would like to upgrade her Power Train Service Contract to a Value Limited Service Contract. The customer then provided CARS with her billing information.On June 8, 2017, CARS processed the customer's upgrade to a Value Limited Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles) with billing information provided by the customer.On June 8, 2017 at 10:24 a.m., a repair facility and the customer advised CARS that the check engine light was displayed in the customer's vehicle. CARS then went over the customer's Service Contract coverage, our claim procedures and labor rate.On June 9, 2017 at 1:12 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing thermostat issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 9, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that engine thermostat code p0128 for insufficient cooling temperature was displayed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 9, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility that we could supply the ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $60.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim was $72.16. CARS further explained that the deductible ($100.00] was greater than the value of the claim ($72.16); therefore, CARS was unable to offer a cash allowance for the thermostat claim. CARS advised the repair facility that we could not assist with the entire claim; however, we could ship the thermostat if the customer was agreeable. We advised the repair facility to contact us if the customer wanted CARS to ship the thermostat. The claim was then closed.By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states under 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." The customer is responsible for a $100.00 deductible for each claim authorized by CARS for the repair of her vehicle. Here, the total value of the June 9, 2017 thermostat claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle was $72.16, which is less than the $100.00 deductible. Since the total value of the claim was less than the $100.00 deductible, CARS advised the repair facility that we could assist with the claim by supplying the thermostat needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility to contact us if the customer was agreeable to having the thermostat shipped. At this time the repair facility has not contacted us regarding a CARS' supplied thermostat for the repair of the customer's vehicle.The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(e): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select used, rebuilt, or aftermarketcomponents when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we used 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. Here, CARS is able to supply a thermostat for the repair of the customer's for $12.18. CARS has not heard from the repair facility if the customer would like the thermostat shipped to the repair facility.The customer's Service Contract states: “COVERED COMPONENTS LABOR: The authorized time for a covered repair will be based on the ProDemand 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." Here, during the processing of the thermostat claim, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle advised CARS that the labor rate for the repair of the customer's vehicle was $95.00 per hour. ProDemand labor guide allows 1.0 hours for the replacement of the thermostat; therefore, the total value of the labor portion of the thermostat claim was $60.00. Here, the customer would be responsible for any amount over $60.00 per hour for the labor costs and any labor time over 1.0 hours associated with the repair of her vehicle.Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, in order to calculate the value of the claim, CARS used the amount ($12.18) that we would pay for a suppled thermostat and the ProDemand labor time for the replacement of a thermostat (1.0 hours at $60.00 per hour) to calculate the amount the total value of the claim. Here, the total value of the claim was $72.18 which is less than the $100.00 deductible. Therefore, CARS could not assist with a cash allowance for the claim; however, we could supply the thermostat, if the customer was agreeable.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.The customer has Service Contract coverage through November 30, 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 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 CounselAttachment

PROTECTION PLUS August 17, 2016 VIA:    SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE:      Complaint No. [redacted] 2002 FORD RANGER VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms....

[redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On June 18, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 5, 2016. On July 21, 2016, the customer upgraded his Service Contract to a Value Limited Service Contract (see attached Service Contract). On August 15, 2016 at 9:31 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing alternator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On August 15, 2016 at 10:52 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle shut down while being driven. The repair facility advised that they had run a charging system test which determined that the alternator failed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. On August 15, 2016 at 11:01, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer’s vehicle as follows: We could supply the alternator for $89.71. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .6 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $36.00. 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 $25.71, and we could supply the part as stated above, or pay $89.71 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer's decision. The customer states in his consumer complaint that CARS was unavailable to authorize a claim on August 12, 2016. The customer is correct. CARS was unavailable to open or authorize a claim on August 12, 2016 due to a catastrophic phone system failure. CARS apologizes for this inconvenience. CARS has, again, reviewed this claim. CARS called the local NAPA store in the area of the customer’s repair and were advised that an alternator could be purchased for $199.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .6 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $36.00. In a goodwill gesture, due to the inconvenience caused to the customer, CARS is willing to reimburse the customer as follows: We can authorize $199.00 for the alternator. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .6 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $36.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. Therefore, CARS is willing to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $188.71. Upon receipt of a proper invoice, CARS will issue the customer a check in the amount of $188.71. By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract and his upgrade to a Value Limited Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. 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 his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. The customer has Service Contract coverage through October 5, 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 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.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

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,
[redacted]

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: Our records show the complainant to be the boyfriend of the owner of the CARS' service contract for the above-referenced vehicle. On November 12,...

2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and was accepted with payment by CARS (the attached "Service Contract”). On October 31, 2013 at 11:02 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing starter issues. On November 14, 2013 CARS paid the repair facility $111.75 via credit card towards a starter and labor pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The starter has a warranty through October 31, 2016 as evidenced on the attached invoice. CARS agree that repairs to vehicles are needed even during holidays. If a message is left by the repair facility that a claim needs to be open during holidays, a return telephone call is made to the repair facility on the next business day. All voice messages left during non-business hour are processed accordingly. CARS has no record of any message being left on our voice mail by a repair facility or the customer regarding the starter issues with the customer's vehicle. However, on December 3, 2014, CARS issued check no. [redacted], in the amount of $52.50 to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. Here, the starter supplied during the October 31, 2014 claim has a three (3) year parts warranty; therefore, the customer should follow-up with the repair facility in regards to the repair facility’s three (3) year warranty on parts.Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. 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.

VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: Complaint No. [redacted]2006 TOYOTA AVALON VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated...

November 17, 2016, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On March 18, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on March 19, 2013 (see attached Service Contract].On January 12, 2015 at 1:11 p.m., the customer advised CARS that there was a misfire on cylinder #4 and #5 and a possible ignition coil issues. CARS then reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage and our claims procedures. CARS also reviewed repair facility criteria with the customer.On July 14, 2016 at 4:01 p.m., the customer advised CARS that his vehicle was experiencing CV joint and lower control arm issues. CARS reviewed ball joint/control arm coverage, Service Contract coverage and our claims procedures. We also reviewed the $100.00 deductible pursuant to his Service Contract.On July 14, 2016 at 4:20 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to go over the diagnostic charges. CARS then reviewed diagnostic, tear-down and parts and labor assistance pursuant to the customer's Service Contract.On July 15, 2016 at 10:42 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing a right inner tie rod, right CV shaft and alignment issues. CARS then reviewed our claims procedures.On July 15, 2016 at 1:59 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing a noise. The repair facility advised that the noise was the result of a failed CV joint and right front inner tie rod. The repair facility advised that there were no other issues. CARS again went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 15, 2016 at 2:02 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the axle for $67.89. ProDemand 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 to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $87.89. CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $87.89 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would be able to assist with the labor in the amount of $20.00. The repair facility advised that they would get back to us with the customer's decision.On July 15, 2016 at 2:38 p.m., CARS reviewed the options we could assist with the repair of his vehicle. The customer was unhappy with our claim allowance. CARS advised the customer to have the repair facility telephone us with his decision.On July 18, 2016 at 8:51 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer took his vehicle without having the repairs performed on his vehicle.By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract 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/or 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 calculated towards the total amount of the claim. The part could either be shipped to the repair facility or included in the amount of the claim allowance 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 to be tested by our suppliers 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.It is stated in the service contract: "LABOR: The authorized time for a repair will be based on 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. NOT COVERED: tear-down and diagnosis." Here, on July 15, 2016, the repair facility advised CARS that the labor rate for the repair of the customer's vehicle was $110.00 per hour. Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, he is responsible for any labor costs that are exceeded by the repair facility.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 his financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, difference in labor rate, labor time, shop supplies, programming, non-covered components, maintenance items and taxes.For all the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to provide any further assistance with the repair of the customer's vehicle.In his consumer complaint the customer states that he would like a refund of his Service Contract. The customer's service contract states:ADDITIONAL STATE DISCLOSURES: TEXAS: The Service Contract holder may cancel the contract at any time. If a service contract holder cancels a service contract before the 31st day after the date of purchase, C.A.RS.:(a) Shall refund to the service contract holder the full purchase price of the contract, decreased by the amount of any claims paid under the contract;(b) may not impose a cancellation fee.If a service contract holder cancels a service contract before on or after the 31st day after the date of purchase, C.A.RS.:(a) Shall refund to the service contract holder the prorated purchase price of the contract, reflecting the remaining term of the contract based on mileage, time, or another reasonably measure of the remaining term that must be disclosed in the contract, decreased by the amount of any claims paid under the contract; and(b) may not impose a reasonable cancellation fee not to exceed $50.(c) A provider who does not pay the refund or credit the service contract holder's account before the 46th day after the notice of cancellation is received by the provider is liable to the service contract holder for each month an amount remains outstanding equal to 10 percent of the amount outstanding. The penalty is in addition to the full or prorated purchase price of the contract that is owed to the service contract holder under this section or the terms of the contract.The customer is entitled to a prorated refund under Texas statute. CARS has calculated the amount due the customer as followsRetail cost of the Service Contract: Term of service contract - 48 months $ 1,500.00Less forty-four [44] months proration@$31.25 per mo - $ 1,375.00Less service fee - $ 50.00Total refund owed by CARS 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. $1,500.00) is not what CARS received for the cost of the customer's Service Contract; however, CARS is willing to pay the prorated refund based on the retail price of the Service Contract.It is the customer's decision whether he wants a refund or to keep his Service Contract coverage through his expiration date of March 19, 2017. CARS asks that the customer contacts CARS either directly or through the Revdex.com by December 9, 2016, with his decision. The customer's Service Contract will remain in effect through December 9, 2016, or until we hear from him, whichever occurs first.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, JPM/jmmAttachment

July 17, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID# [redacted]VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated July 12, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced consumer...

complaint.Please be advised that CARS has resolved all the issues regarding this complaint with the customer.Therefore, at this time, CARS is requesting that you mark this complaint as resolved. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason *. M[redacted]General Counsel

VIA: Revdex.comRE: CUST: [redacted]VEHICLE: 2008 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO: [redacted] YOUR CASE NO: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]1 am in receipt of your letter dated June 16, 2016, regarding the above-referenced vehicle and respond as follows: Our records...

indicate that on June 3, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle from [redacted] On that same day, the customer also applied for a Value Plus service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Service Contract on July 9, 2015. (See attached Service Contract).On June 15, 2016 at 3:07 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission line, radiator hose and water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 15, 2016, at 3:24 p.m., after again reviewing our claim procedures with the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the water pump for $43.12. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $126.00. 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 $69.12, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $26.00 towards labor or pay $69.12 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice.Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, CARS will pay the repair facility a total of $69.12 when a proper invoice is submitted to us for payment.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 option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, oraftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above, the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $69.12 towards the repair of her choice or having CARS supply the water pump. The repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of her choice.It is stated in the customer’s Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS:COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” Here, the transmission lines radiator hoses are not listed on the customer's Service Contract; therefore, these components are not covered under her Service Contract. The transmission lines and the radiator hoses and any labor associated with the replacement of these components are the responsibility of the customer.For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to provide any further assistance with the ]une 15, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.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.The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 9, 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 contract my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmm

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. They have never supplied me with the third party inspection report the only one I have is fro [redacted] I want the one that was from the third party inspector. I also called three certified Cadillac technicians and asked them are head bolts a cause of failure to an engine and it was clear they said no, this happened after an initial part broke down, ie head gasket. The head bolts just don't stretch and engine fails as I mentioned this is a domino effect that made this happen. It states clearly on the paper work from [redacted] this was not the reason of failure it was engine oil and coolant mixing. The mechanics mentioned that this does not just happen. So with this being said how can you deny a claim from head bolts being the cause of failure when this is not a engine failing issue or cause. I am in contact with an attorney regarding this matter and hopefully we can come to some conclusion.   
 
Regards,
[redacted]

March 21, 2017I am in receipt of your letter dated March 16, 2017 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On December 7, 2016 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 December 12, 2016 (the attached “Service Contract").Since the inception of Service Contract coverage, two (2) mechanical claims were opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle as follows:FIRST CLAIM: On January 3, 2017 at 2:31 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing front hub bearing issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures.On January 4, 2017 at 8:52 a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures and then went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply both front hubs for $164.29. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $100.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $340.00. 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 $404.29. CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $404.29 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 $240.00. The repair facility advised that they would contact CARS with the customer's decision.On January 4, 2017 the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like us to supply the parts to the repair facility for the repair of her vehicle.On January 4, 2017 at 10:41 a.m., CARS provided an authorization for the labor to the repair facility and gave an estimated arrival time of January 6, 2017 for the front hubs.Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on January 13, 2017 CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $240.00 towards labor for the repair of the customer's vehicle via credit card. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on January 20, 2017, CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $164.29 for parts used in the repair of the customer's vehicle via credit card. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On March 16, 2017 at 9:57 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing front axle issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures.On March 16, 2017 at 10:51 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the front axles on the customer's vehicle had failed. CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the left front axle for $53.79 and the right front axle for $53.79. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.5 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $100.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $250.00. 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 $257.58. CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $257.58 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 $150.00. The repair facility advised that the customer would like the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicle. CARS then provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repair to the customer's vehicle.On March 16, 2017 at 11:22 a.m., CARS reviewed the axle claim with customer. CARS also reviewed the cash allowance/shipping options, labor allowance and rental benefits with the customer.On March 16, 2017 at 12:42 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would now like CARS to supply the axles to the repair facility. CARS then provided the repair facility with a new authorization number to begin the repair to the customer's vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility that the supplied parts would arrive in three (3] business day. CARS then ordered the left front axle and the right front axle to be shipped to the repair facility via 2 Business Day Express.On March 16, 2017 at 1:36 p.m., CARS reviewed the cash allowance/shipping options, labor allowance and rental benefits with the customer's husband. The customer's husband was upset and ended the telephone with CARS.On March 21, 2017 at 10:04 a.m., the left front axle and the right front axle were delivered to the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle.By the customer's signature on her Ultimate Value Service Contract under the Acceptance to Terms, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein.. It is stated in the 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 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, the customer chose to have the parts supplied by CARS for the repairs needed for the March 16, 2017 axle claim opened on behalf of her vehicle.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will not be responsible for any time lost, anyinconvenience 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, the customer's axle claim was opened and processed within four [4] hours even with the customer changing her mind about whether to use the repair facility supplied part or the shipped part supplied by CARS. Additionally, CARS did authorize 2 Business Day Express shipping.CARS would like to point out here that we have no control over our supplier's shipping times and delays. When made aware of delays, CARS contacts our suppliers for updated information and will advise the repair facility of any changes in the delivery date.It is stated in the service contract: "RENTAL BENEFITS: The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Downtime, regardless of reason, is not included." Here, as stated above, ProDemand labor guide stated that the March 16, 2017 axle claim should take 2.5 hours of labor time to complete; therefore, the customer is not eligible for any rental benefits for this claim.The customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of 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, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates, rental benefits and deductible.For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with any rental costs incurred by the customer during the processing of the March 16, 2017 axle claim.In her consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund of her Service Contract. The customer's service contract states 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."Additionally, 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 she purchased the above-referenced vehicle in Indiana stating that she had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in Indiana to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. Therefore, pursuant to her Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund.The customer has Service Contract coverage through December 12, 2020. 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 her Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Jason [redacted] General Counsel

April 12, 2016VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2001 LEXUS GS300 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I received your letter dated April 8, 2016, enclosing the customer’s concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on February...

15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on March 24, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).FIRST CLAIM: On March 15, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing radiator, radiator cap and thermostat issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.During the processing of the customer's claim, on March 15, 2016 at 3:23 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the customer’s claim as follows: We could supply the radiator for $83.93 and the thermostat for $7.90. CARS could also assist with the coolant needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $28.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.7 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $189.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $117.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $89.00 towards labor or pay $117.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would telephone us back with your decision.On March 15, 2016 at 4:05 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted CARS to supply the parts to the repair facility for the repair of his vehicle. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair and an estimated delivery date for the supplied parts of March 18, 2016. Since the repair facility telephoned CARS after 4:00 p.m., CARS was not able to place an order for the supplied parts until March 16, 2016.On March 21, 2016 at 10:21 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the supplied parts had not arrived at the repair facility. CARS advised the customer that our supplier would telephone the repair facility with an update on the arrival time of the supplied parts. As evidenced by the attached shipping and tracking information, the supplied parts arrived at the repair facility on March 21, 2016 at 1:29 p.m.On March 23, 2016, CARS paid the repair facility $117.00 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract for labor relating to the supplied radiator and thermostat. On April 11, 2015, CARS paid our parts supplier $131.83 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract for a radiator and thermostat. The claim was then closed.On April 6, 2016 at 9:35 a.m., the customer advised CARS that during an inspection of his vehicle, a repair facility advised him that the radiator fan was broken and the check engine light was displayed when the repair facility attempted to repair the radiator fan. The customer advised CARS that the repair facility that replaced his radiator damaged the fan because the fan was not like this prior to the replacement of the radiator. CARS advised the customer that the repair facility who previously replaced the radiator was responsible to repair/replace the radiator since they damaged the repair facility.SECOND CLAIM: On April 7, 2016 at 11:36 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.On April 7, 2016 at 11:55 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility with low coolant and a cracked expansion tank which is part of the fan assembly. The repair facility further advised that the customer told them that the expansion tank (fan assembly) was not covered by CARS due to the previous repair facility damaging the fan assembly during the radiator replacement. The repair facility recommended that the timing belt be replaced. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.During the processing of the customer's claim, on April 7, 2016 at 12:01 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the customer's claim as follows: We could supply the water pump for $54.79. CARS could also assist with the coolant needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $12.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $266.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $232.79, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $166.00 towards labor or pay $232.79 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.On April 7, 2016 at 4:24 p.m., CARS advised the customer that we could not assist with the replacement of the timing belt because it had not failed. The repair facility had recommended the timing belt be replaced as a maintenance item. We further advised that it was his responsibility to take care of all maintenance pertaining to his vehicle.By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of thehis service contract. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.”When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. The customer chose to have the radiator and thermostat shipped to the repair facility. Here, CARS provided the repair facility with an estimated delivery date for the arrival of the supplied parts; however, we have no control over any shipping delays with the supplier or the carrier.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 1 (i): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair." Based on the information provided to CARS by the customer and the second repair facility, the repair facility that performed the repairs to the customer vehicle during the March 15, 2016 claim, damaged the expansion tank (radiator fan] during the repair of the customer’s vehicle. Therefore, the first repair facility is responsible for the replacement of the radiator fan pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract.The customer’s Service Contract also states under the Terms and Conditions at 2 (h) and 3 (g): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: You are responsible for properly maintain the vehicle in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and to protect against further damage caused by continued operation or damage from overheating." and "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: "If it is determined that a coveredcomponent has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S., an authorization number will be issued for the repair." Here, the repair facility recommended that the timing belt be replaced; however, the timing belt had not failed; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, the replacement of the timing belt would be considered maintenance and not covered under the customer's Service Contract.However, in a goodwill gesture, on April 8, 2016, CARS telephoned the repair facility and authorized an additional $25.00 for the April 7, 2016 mechanical claim, which was the amount we would pay our supplier for a timing belt.In his consumer complaint the customer states that he has incurred additional rental expense due to the radiator and thermostat arriving at the repair facility one (1] business day later than the estimated delivery date. The rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not beresponsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered components (radiator and thermostat] was 2.7 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any rental benefits. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS will issue the customer a check for $75.00 towards the cost of his rental expenses.In summary, the customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the teardown, filters, fluids, taxes, and the difference in labor rates.For the above reasons, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.JPM/jmmAttachment

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.
  I do understand the wording of the contract and it does state that the repairs have to be approved prior to any work being completed.  My concern is with the companies handling of the request.  Now tell me as a company you care about your customer and the answer is only those that are paying in.  What would it of hurt for you to contact the repair facility and have your adjuster ask his questions.  Before or after the repair the answers will be the same.  Maybe the repair would have met the "prior notice" part of the contract and you could of helped a customer out.  That is taking care of your customer.  Even if the result would have come back as rejected or partial value that would have been acceptable.  As soon as that "prior authorization" was not met your reps shut me down and it isn't them its you as a company.  You just made money and that is what matters right.  They didn't even ask why I didn't get prior approval they just said "No we will not cover the repair".  Thanks for listening
Regards,
[redacted]

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