C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2008 BMW 135i VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated February 29, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On or around June 16, 2014, the customer...

purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 2, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).Since the inception of the customer’s Service Contract, two (2) mechanical claims were called in by repair facilities on behalf of the customer’s vehicle as follows:First Claim: On July 8, 2015 at 1:29 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the left door latch and the left window regulator. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On that same date, July 8, 2015 at 1:40 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the starter for $125.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair, including tear-down, should take 2.2 hours to complete and the repair facility labor rate was $85.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $187.00. We explained that the total value of the claim was $312.00, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $187.00 towards labor or pay $312.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer's vehicle.On July 24, 2015 CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $312.00 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On February 25, 2016 at 1:59 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the rear turbo charger issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On February 26, 2016 at 1:26 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the turbo charger for $250.00 and gaskets for $25.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 12.0 hours to complete, and the repair facility labor rate was $85.00 per hour for labor. CARS will also pay for 1.0 hours of diagnostics/tear- down at the repair facility's $85.00 per hour labor rate. Therefore, total labor was $1,105.00. We explained that the total value of the claim $1,380.00, and we could supply the part as stated and assist with the cost of labor in the amount of $1,105.00 or pay $1,380.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would get back to CARS with the customer's decision.On February 29, 2016 at 11:44 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the customer. The customer advised that he did not want a used turbo charger. CARS advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS could offer a used turbo charger for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new, rebuilt or remanufactured part when replacing a failed component. Here, the customer has the option of taking the cash allowance of $1,445.00 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the used turbo charger and gasket.CARS would like to point out here that the turbo charger that was quoted to the customer and the repair facility did in fact have fewer miles than the turbo charger that was in the customer’s vehicle. It is very likely that the replacement turbo charger for the customer’s vehicle will have less mileage than the turbo charger in his vehicle; however, the original replacement turbo charger may no longer be available since several days have passed since we discussed this part with our supplier.At this time CARS is waiting to hear back from the repair facility regarding the customer's decision so that we may move forward with February 26, 2016 turbo charger claim.The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 2, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his 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.

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 27, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer contacted CARS on February 16, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., advising that he purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 31,...

2015 and the voltage was fluctuating. The customer further advised a CARS customer service representative that the vehicle may be experiencing alternator issues. During that telephone call, CARS thoroughly searched our database but could find no record of the selling dealer ever submitting to CARS a service contract application for the customer's vehicle. We advised the customer that a service contract is not active until we receive it with payment, process the service contract application, and approve it. We then referred the customer back to the selling dealer. Thereafter, on February 20, 2015, CARS received the customer's service contract application; however, said service contract application with payment was rejected because we were previously notified by the customer that his vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance. On that same day, we advised both the customer and the selling dealer in writing of the customer's service contract application rejection because CARS was notified that the customer’s vehicle was in need of repair. At no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract application. Directly above the signature line for the owner’s acceptance to terms, the service contract states:  "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this application is received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase."  It also states at Paragraph 2(e): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S."  The service contract states under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS.") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. C.A.R.S. does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase." Here, the customer telephoned CARS to advise us that he was experiencing voltage issues with his vehicle. The customer also states in his consumer complaint that he telephoned CARS to find a repair facility for his vehicle. Therefore, CARS was correct in our decision to reject the customer's service contract application for cause because we were informed by the customer that his vehicle was having mechanical failures prior to service contract approval. 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

August 12, 2015VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2003 [redacted] VIN (Last [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our...

records on July 20, 2015, after CARS received the transfer of ownership and payment for the transfer, a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) was transferred to the customer by the original purchaser of the Service Contract (See attached "Service Contract”).On August 7, 2015, at 1:41 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential and tie rod issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On August 7, 2015, at 2:01 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that a growling noise was coming from the rear differential and fluid had leaked from the pinion seal. The repair facility further advised that the cause of failure was the pinion seal. The repair facility was to fax an estimate with the cause of failure to CARS. However, the faxed estimate did not have a cause of failure to the customer's vehicle listed.On August 7, 2015 at 4:04 p.m., in a recorded call the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was the pinion seal.On August 7, 2015 at 4:12 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract coverage, CARS was unable to assist with the repair to the customer's vehicle because the pinion seal is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVECOMPONENTS.” and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) and 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." and"Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component." Here, the pinion seal is not listed for coverage. The pinion (non-covered component) caused damage to the rear differential (covered component): therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to repair the pinion seal and any damage caused by the pinion seal.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." The pinion seal leak caused the damage to the rear differential.Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.For these reasons, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the August 7, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 12, 2015. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, CARS will pay accordingly. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel[redacted]Attachment

August 1, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITEPatricia [redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 MERCEDES CLK350 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated July 25, 2016, enclosing...

the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On August 18, 2015 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 August 25, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").First Claim: On July 6, 2016 at 11:12 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing thrust arm, sway bar link and lower control arm issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 6, 2016 at 11:21 a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that the thrust arm bushing, ball joints that attach to the thrust arms, both lower arm bushings and sway bars links had failed. CARS advised the repair facility to fax CARS an estimate with part numbers and we would call him back after the estimate was reviewed.On July 11, 2016 at 8:45 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed the vehicle without any repairs being performed. Since the vehicle was removed, the claim was closed.Second Claim: On July 13, 2016 at 1:32 p.m., a new repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing thrust arm/bushing, sway bar link and lower control arm issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 13, 2016 at 1:55 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was a noise under the vehicle. The repair facility advised that the front thrust arms have excessive play from the ball joints. The repair facility further advised that the front lower control arm bushings and the front sway bar had failed. CARS then went over our claim procedures.On July 14, 2016 at 11:41 a.m., CARS reviewed with the repair facility the customer’s options of having the parts shipped to the repair facility or taking cash allowance towards the repair of their choice. CARS then requested that the repair facility fax CARS an estimate with part numbers and we would call him back after the estimate was reviewed.On July 18, 2016 at 8:42 a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to get the status of the customer’s claim. The repair facility advised that they would telephone CARS with the part numbers and that the vehicle was still at the repair facility.On July 20, 2016 at 2:03 p.m., CARS left a voice message for the customer to telephone CARS.On July 21, 2016 at 10:31 a.m., CARS returned he customer's voice message giving CARS permission to speak to her friend and spoke to the customer's friend who advised that Ms. Walton's vehicle was no longer at the repair facility. CARS explained the procedures for opening a new claim.As of today, August 1, 2016, a new claim has not been opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.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 stated in your Service Contract under: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility must provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun." Here, CARS requested an estimate with the part numbers for failed the thrust arms/bushings, sway bar link and lower control arms to your vehicle so that we would be able to determine what replacement parts/assemblies are covered under the customer's Service Contract. After CARS receives and reviews this information, we will advise the repair facility/the customer on the options we have to assist the customer with the claim.Here, neither of the two repair facilities that opened claims on behalf of the customer’s vehicle supplied CARS with the requested estimate with part numbers so that we could move forward with the July 6, 2016 and July 13, 2016 claims made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle what components would be covered under the customer's Service Contract.Under the customer's Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what components are specifically CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with an estimate listing the requested part numbers before CARS can move forward with the mechanical issues the customer’s vehicle is experiencing.The customer has Service Contract coverage through August 19, 2019. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.JPM/jmm

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.
Please see the attached Parts List. According to the mechanic that handled the case as well as my Engineer Partner (friend as mentioned in their letter), the Brake Booster Pump IS a subassembly of the Master Cylinder.  Had we simply asked to replace the entire Master Cylinder, which is covered, the Brake Booster Pump would have been covered.  Because we made an attempt to be fair, we advised Cars Plus that it was this sub-assembly, a part within the Mater Cylinder, that had to be replaced.  Regards,
[redacted]

June 20, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2007 CHRYSLER ASPEN VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer additional concerns. I would like to respond in the following manner:As stated in our June 8, 2016 letter to you, on June 3, 2016 at 11:32 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer gave her permission to the repair facility to do diagnostics on her vehicle when the vehicle was brought to the repair facility.By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT 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 is covered. Here, the customer is responsible for all charges related to teardown/diagnostics. Any teardown/diagnostic costs are between the customer and the repair facility.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.Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmm

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, T[redacted]> wrote:Dear Cars Protection Plus Legal, I have enclosed the BMW of [redacted] Vehicle Care Package and Multi Point Inspection Form (Quote for repair) dated 5DEC16.  Request that Cars Protection Plus open a claim and pay for repairs in the amount of $14,560.95.   1. I understand that originally the battery was not fully covered with the warranty; however the result of this dead battery was vehicle in storage status for the past year as per my original letter.  2. Also request that the funds be sent expeditiously to the BMW of [redacted] so that they may begin repair work and order the necessary parts.  Click here to view your Vehicle Care Package  Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted]   -----Original Message-----From[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2016 3:41 pmSubject: A note concerning your vehicle: 2006 BMW 7 SeriesClick here to view your Vehicle Care PackageThis includes your vehicle inspection report, service plan, and information about any caution or failed items found during the inspection.Your service advisor will review this information with you.

VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 CHRYSLER 300 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated September 30, 2016, enclosing the additional concerns of the customer. The customer attached a video regarding the repair/replacement of speed sensors. The customer’s response and video were reviewed by a claims manager. The video was not from a credible source.By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1 (a): It is stated in your Service Contract under: "COVERED COMPONENTS" (AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION/TRANSFER CASE) Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing: torque converter; bands; pump; pump housing; carrier assembly; planetary gears; chain; drums; reaction shaft; governor; valve body; and servo assemblies...” In addition, at "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components." Also, under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure."Here, the repair facility that the customer chose to repair her vehicle advised CARS that the input and output speed sensors were the only failure to the vehicle. The speed sensors are built into the conductor plate, which can be purchased separately from the valve body and are not an internally lubricated part of the transmission. Therefore, this repair is not covered under the customer's Power Train Service Contract.CARS stands by our original decision and is unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle.Sincerely,[redacted], General CounselJPM/jmm

Review: The adjuster Rod ext 272 gave me a 30 quote on what they would pay for A/C repairs on my 2002 Escalade of $559.93,( that was the price after the $100.00 deductible) But only paid $388.94 leaving a balance of $170.99 still owed me. I called and attempted to reach him no less than 15 times but No answer. Then I emailed him, NO response, Then I called and ask for his supervisor Scott ext [redacted]. He said they would pay No more than the 388.94 even though Rod quoted of $559.93. So I ask to talk to his supervisor Bernie, got his voice mail, but Bernie has not responded either. I paid $1800.00 upfront for their protection plan, All I want is for them to pay what the contract says and what They said they would pay. I want my $170.99 reimbursement.Desired Settlement: I want them to Honor their contract and quote on auto repairs.

Business

Response:

August 18, 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 CADILLAC ESCALADE VIN (Last 8)[redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am in receipt of your letter dated August 16, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 17, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 17, 2016. First Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 9:57 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner line issues and needed to be recharged. We advised that the air conditioner line is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed. Second Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor, drier, and condenser issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 27, 2016 at 4:12 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $292.00 and the condenser for $70.99. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $48.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.8 hours to complete, and repair facility's hourly rate was $65.00. Therefore, total labor was $247.00. 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 $556.99, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $147.00 towards labor, or pay $556.99 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. On July 28, 2016 at 10:38 a.m., CARS reviewed the options we could offer for the repair of his vehicle with the customer. The customer advised us that he may take his vehicle to another repair facility for the repairs. CARS then advised the customer that if he did remove his vehicle from the repair facility a new claim would have to be opened on behalf of his vehicle. On July 28, 2016 at 4:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed his vehicle without any repairs being performed on his vehicle. The claim was then closed. Third Claim: On August 9, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a second repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On August 10, 2016 at 1:17 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $253.51 and the drier for $35.86. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $45.57. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.2 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $154.00. 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 $388.94, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $54.00 towards labor, or pay $388.94 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. On August 10, 2016 at 2:08 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle. On that same day, on August 10, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On August 10, 2016, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, upon receipt of a proper invoice, CARS paid the repair facility $388.94 towards the repair of the air conditioner via credit card. On August 15, 2016 at 2:04 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they performed the authorized repairs; however, the customer’s vehicle had no air conditioning in the rear of his vehicle. The repair facility further advised that the rear air expansion valve had failed. CARS advised that the rear expansion valve is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. On August 16, 2016 at 9:54 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like to be paid the rest of the thirty (30) day quote that CARS provided during the processing of the July 27, 2016 claim to another repair facility. The customer stated that we originally quoted him $600.00; however, we only paid $388.94. CARS advised that we paid the amount we authorized to the current repair facility for the parts and labor (see attached invoice). CARS advised that the failure of the expansion valve and any damage caused by that failure were not covered under his Service Contract. We further advised that we do not give thirty (30) day quotes. On August 16, 2016 at 11:24 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the current and previous claims with the customer. By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It 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 take the cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, on August 15, 2016 the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear expansion valve issues. These components are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS cannot assist with the repair/replacement of the expansion valve. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(a): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: ...The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." Here, the July 27, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle by the first repair facility was closed on July 28, 2016 when the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility. During a telephone call with the customer on July 28, 2016, CARS advised the customer that if he removed his vehicle from the repair facility, a new claim would need to be opened on behalf of his vehicle whenever he took his vehicle to a repair facility for repairs. CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract and what is necessary for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, CARS authorized the claim based on the information provided by the repair facility and paid the claim as per the authorized parts listed on the invoice. During the processing of the August 9, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS authorized an a/c compressor for $253.51, a drier for $35.86, and fluids for $45.57 and 2.2 hours for labor, less the deductible, based on the information provided by the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle for a total of $388.94. CARS cannot apply monies from an authorization for a closed claim towards the open claim. Therefore, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist any further with the August 9, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer. 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 February 18, 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 the customer's Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

We bought a power train warranty for 90 days, contract [redacted]..

The head gasket failed after just 4 weeks and 330 miles. They are denying the claim and I have contacted their insurer, will make a formal complaint to the [redacted] Attorney General, will make a complaint to the Indiana Attorney General and plan to sue in civil court under fraud, unfair business practices, and the [redacted] Lemon law.

I notice they make a canned response that denies allegations and that only 12% are satisfied with their services.... but the still have a Revdex.com A+ rating....which honestly says even more about Revdex.com than CARS.

See this;

this so called warrenty is the biggest ripoff in the whole world. its not even funny. I was stuck on the side of the road talking to them to request me a tow truck. I was stuck for 8 hours on the side of the road. till I had to call another company and pay them just so I can get home safe. and now I took my car to a dealership to get serviced they wont even pay for 10% of the whole total for what the dealer is asking for. every single time I took my car in I paid 90% more than what the " warrenty " covered. I am very [redacted] off at such a disgusting company.

Review: I HAVE AN EXTNDED WARRANTY THAT COVERS INTERNAL LUBRICATED PARTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE TRANSMISSION. MY VEHICLE'S SPEED SENSOR FAILED WITH CODE P2767, WHICH THIS COMPONENT IS LOCATED INSIDE THE TRANSMISSION AND THE WARRANTY COMPANY WILL NOT HONOR IT CLAIMING THAT THIS PART IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE TRANSMISSION. I CONTACTED THE COMPANY SEVERAL TIMES AND SPOKE WITH A SUPER VISOR BY THE NAME OF BARNEY AND ADJUSTER BY THE NAME OF DAVID, IN A RELUCTANT WAY BOTH TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULD NOT WARRANTY THE REPAIR STATING " IT IS NOT AN INTERNAL LUBRICATED PART" WHICH IS A LIE.Desired Settlement: I WOULD LIKE A REFUND FOR WHAT I HAD TO COME OUT OF POCKET FOR THIS REPAIR. SINCE I HAD TO PURCHASE THIS EXTENDED WARRANTY TO HELP ME INCASE OF A SITUATION LIKE THIS HAD OCCURED.

Business

Response:

VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 CHRYSLER 300 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated September 26, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On September 1, 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). The customer's Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on September 2, 2016 (the attached Service Contract).On September 21, 2016 at 1:25 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues.On September 21, 2016 at 2:42 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she had been having mechanical issues with the vehicle since the purchase date. The customer also stated that she did not notice any issues with the transmission except the "SES" illuminated with a transmission code.On September 21, 2016 at 4:15 p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was jerking on shifts and the code was P2767 (i.e. speed sensor). The repair facility originally stated that the vehicle needed a transmission control module (TCM)/Electro Hydraulic Control Unit, which included the input and output speed sensors. According to the repair facility, the module/unit could be purchased separate from the valve body. CARS advised the repair facility that we would review the claim and get back to him.On that same date at 4:53 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the TCM/Electro Hydraulic Control Unit was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS would be unable to assist with the repair. The repair facility was unhappy with CARS decision and requested to speak with a claims manager. The telephone call was then transferred.At 5:01 p.m., a claims manager reviewed the claim with the repair facility. The repair facility stated that the failed part number was RL108213AB. During that telephone call, the claims manager looked up the part number and advised the repair facility that the part number was for a valve body. The repair facility stated that the failed part was part of the valve body, but didn’t attach to the valve body. The repair facility then stated that it was the input and output speed sensors that needed replaced. The claims manager advised the repair facility that CARS would look into the claim and call him back.On September 22, 2016 at 11:02 a.m., after researching the components requiring repair and replacement on the customer's vehicle, CARS contacted the repair facility and requested that they provide CARS with the estimate for repair for clarification.After receiving the estimate, on September 22, 2016 at 1:44 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility the transmission in the customer's vehicle was a Merecedes brand and that the actual name of the part was a "conductor plate." The speed sensors are built into the conductor plate and can be serviced and sold separately from the valve body. CARS also advised that the conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission; therefore, CARS would not be able to assist with the repair.CARS also confirmed with one of its parts suppliers that the speed sensors requiring repair on the customer's vehicle are built into the conductor plate and can be serviced and sold separately from the valve body. See photograph of conductor plate attached for further clarification.On September 22, 2015 as 2:35 p.m., a claims manager again advised the repair facility that the part needed to be replaced on the customer’s vehicle was the conductor plate, with the speed sensors built in. CARS also advised that since the conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission, is not listed for coverage, and can be serviced and purchased separately from the valve body; CARS would be unable to assist with the repair under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1 (a): It is stated in your Service Contract under: "COVERED COMPONENTS" (AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION/TRANSFER CASE)Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing: torque converter; bands; pump; pump housing; carrier assembly; planetary gears; chain; drums; reaction shaft; governor; valve body; and servo assemblies..." In addition, at "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components." Also, under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure."Here, the repair facility that the customer chose to repair her vehicle advised CARS that the input and output speed sensors were the only failure to the vehicle. The speed sensors are built into the conductor plate, which can be purchased separately from the valve body and are not an internally lubricated part of the transmission. Therefore, this repair is not covered under the customer's Power Train Service Contract.For the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the September 21, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Customer’s Service Contract.The customer has Service Contract coverage available through December 2, 2016 or 113,695 miles, whichever occurs first. Should the customer's vehicle incur future mechanical issues, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered. If covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Power Train Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/cllAttachments

Review: I purchased a used vehicle in March 2016 and purchased an extended warranty with this company. In June, my car began to misfire. I paid for two repairs (fuel system clean and new spark plugs) before it was recommended that I receive a new engine due to at least two cylinders going bad and oil leaking in my spark plugs. The Buick Dealership recommended that I replace the entire engine due to if one part has failed, it has cause significant damage to the other parts of my engine. They stated that replacing one part was not recommended. I also had a second business confirm this recommendation. When I tried to use my extended warranty, I was told that I was have to pay have my engine taken apart prior to them deciding if they would cover the cost of the one part that was damage. The repair shop and second repair shop reported that they would not advise this was due to damage that may have been cause to other parts. I literally called 8 to 10 places to price the cost of having my engine taken apart. Half of the companies did not want to work with Cars Protection Inc due to the reputations and stipulations. Other places did not want to take apart my engine due to cost and refuse to tear it down. Buick was the only one to quote me a tear down price, which was $1500. They still didn't recommend that I just replace one part and Cars Protections could not guarantee that they would cover the repair after tear down. After I paid to hav my engine replaced out of pocket, I was also needed additional work completed on my exhaust, that Cars Inc also would not cover. I am simply requesting a refund due to replacing 80% of my parts that are covered by the Cars Protection Inc extended warranty out of my pocket and having paid over $4000. I purchased the plan with the intention of having not to stress over car repairs, and they have not assisted me at all.Desired Settlement: A complete or partial financial refund

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]

Attached please find CARS' response. Thank you.COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2010 BUICK LACROSSE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]1 am in receipt of your letter dated August 3, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On March 25, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer’s Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on March 28, 2016 (the attached Service Contract).On July 5, 2016 at 4:49 p.m., a mechanical claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle advising that the vehicle was experiencing engine issues. At 5:08 p.m., we then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility advising the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down the vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS also advised the repair facility that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility to get back to us with the cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle.On July 6, 2016 at 11:04 a.m., CARS claims adjuster spoke with the customer and went over the claim procedures in detail with her. The customer stated that she might move the vehicle to another repair facility. We advised the customer to have any new repair facility call CARS to open a new claim.This was the last communication between CARS and the customer and any repair facility regarding the engine claim.On August 1, 2016 at 3:39 p.m., the customer called our customer service department inquiring about a refund. We advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, she was not entitled to a refund.On that same date at 3:43 p.m., the customer called stating that the teardown requirements were unreasonable and that she should receive a refund. We again explained to the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, she was not eligible for a refund.Again on August 2, 2016 at 4:34 p.m., a CARS' Manager returned a telephone call to the customer and explained to her that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, she was not entitled to a refund.By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT 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." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. This is the claim procedure that must be followed by all CARS customers for all mechanical claims.CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it was necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage in order for CARS to move forward with the engine claim.The customer states in her complaint that she had the repairs performed on the vehicle without having the repairs authorized by CARS and is now requesting a refund. Under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract it states at Paragraphs 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS." Also at Paragraph 3(e): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs have begun."Furthermore, the customer states in her complaint that she is requesting a refund of $1,295.00; however, the customer’s Service Contract states that the customer paid $1,278.00 for the Service Contract. This is not the amount that CARS received for the cost of the customer’s Service Contract. Dealers have the right to mark up the cost of service contracts. The selling dealer that sold the customer the Service Contract did mark up and make a profit on the cost of the same.Additionally, at Paragraph 5(b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated."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 Tennessee stating that she had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in Tennessee 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 March 28, 2018. If the customer experiences mechanical issues in the future, she must follow all the claim procedures which may include teardown and diagnostics to determine if the component failure is covered under her 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.

Consumer

Response:

Review: When we first contacted the warranty company with a claim for a part on our vehicle they refused to cover the issue, because they "didn't cover that joint", but "that joint" was part of a larger assembly that is sold as one piece and cannot be bought or used sperately. We spent half of the day calling back and forth between the repair shop and the warranty company before it was resolved. Now the warranty company wants to put a used part on our vehicle and there is no way to guarantee that it is a quality part. My husband and I cannot afford to pay the difference to put in a new part but don't deserve to drive around wondering if the drive shaft is going to give way. The warranty company has refused to use a new part nor have they offered any sort of guarantee for the used part or promise of quality.Desired Settlement: We are asking for some sort of guarantee at a minimum, which should not be an issue if they think the used part is as serviceable as a new part.

Business

Response:

June 9, 2016 VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com website [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania [redacted] RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2006 PONTIAC GTO VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 7, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 12, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 16, 2016. The customer’s Service Contract will expire on June 16, 2016. On June 3, 2016 at 10:40 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing prop shaft issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. On June 3, 2016 at 1:45 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the driveshaft for $450.00. ProDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 1.4 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $84.00. 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 $434.00, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $84.00 towards labor or pay $434.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision. By the customer’s signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The 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 part we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

Review: Cars Protection Plus service contract was offered with the purchase of a used vehicle. This was followed up by an offer from Cars Protection Plus for coverage on additional components which was purchased. The covered vehicle was brought to a repair facility on Friday 8/12/2016 due to an alternator failure. This is listed as a covered component under the service contract. The warranty company was not available for authorization that day due to down phone systems. The vehicle remained at the repair shop until Monday morning. The repair facility contacted the warranty company for authorization. The total itemized bill came to 315.99. Parts 249.99, labor 66.00. The warranty company offered to pay $25.71. We have a $100.00 deductible. CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt or aftermarket components. This is not a requirement per the contract, only an option. They based their reimbursement on the cheaper way out. This would also require the repair shop to order this part, that I'm certain they will not guarantee including the work. We were already without a driveable vehicle for 4 days. I needed the vehicle so I just paid for it.Desired Settlement: I would like to be reimbursed $149.99 of the $249.99 for the part. This is less the $100.00 deductible. Furthermore, I would like to be reimbursed $60.00 of $66.00 for the labor for a total of $209.99. The $25.71offered was a complete waste of my 4 days trying to do the right thing.

Business

Response:

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

I had the high mileage extended warranty coverage. I was refused help with a transmission issue. Fast forward 5 months. Money wasn't in my checking account just needed to be transferred, I was never aware of payment date. I never got written or digital information informing me of a due date. The payment kind of just went through, wasn't much money anyway. Had an unexpected charge go through. I get a letter.
O yes! An actual letter from the company that I've been giving my money too!
The entire letter quotes the contract and the policy on missed payment.....
"Therefore, your service contract is void and cannot be reinstated."
Wait, what? CANNOT. Be Reinstated?
What kind of a fly by night [redacted] is this?
So you take my money with open arms and than drop the guillotine the second my account hits a speed bump?
I have never, ever heard of a company that kicks you out the door like this. The only reason they would is that it is part of their plan from the start.
Lets get this straight, this is a [redacted]. if I get stranded and screwed in my P.O.S. car plan. OK, nobody with decent credit is getting this. This company is preying on the poor for profit.
Lets give the poor man a good sounding plan take his low payment, and than keep everything the second his messes up and kick him to the curb. Because statistically, the people that are poor are irresponsible with their money. So if even 50% of their customers get kicked out, guess what? That's all profit! And their is enough people living by the skin of their teeth to give them a month or 2 payment to keep their doors open.
All in all.
*The customer service is terrible good luck getting someone on the phone the 7 hours during the day their in the office. You will need to adjust your work schedule around theirs to get something accomplished.
*The nice old lady at the transmission place was yelled at when she put in a service request.
*I received "0" correspondence, and I mean ZERO. I got my card in the mail. That's it. No follow ups nothing. Worst customer service I've ever seen.
Again, I will reiterate. The whole company is a scam.
The give you a low payment that's easy to forget about. The send you no correspondence reminding you that you are even a customer. When you call you are number not a person. A payment doesn't go thru, your out the door. Can I run another card? Oh. No? Just want me to go to hell? Well, right back at you.
Around $200 the burned me for. Would've been better to literally burn it. Now, if I have a breakdown tomorrow I'm screwed.
Thanks CARS! (dislike)

I just signed on with this company yesterday, and I'm already getting bad vibes from them. I signed the paperwork yesterday, they charged my card today, and when I called the woman told me she didn't have any info for me in her system. The thing is, she had to have some info because Cars Protection Plus charged my credit card. I went round and round with her on the phone, and she kept telling me to call the dealer. She even told me that I had not been charged by them, even though my credit card statement said CARS PROTECTION PLUS! Finally she said she saw my info and to call back in a week or so for more info. It seemed like she was angry through the whole conversation. Now I feel horrible. ......

Review: I purchased a warranty. I had a suspension issue which is supposed to be coverd but since its connected to another part its not coverd. all car parts are connected to the otherDesired Settlement: to pay for the repairs the warranty states it covers

Business

Response:

August 1, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITEPatricia [redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 MERCEDES CLK350 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated July 25, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On August 18, 2015 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 August 25, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").First Claim: On July 6, 2016 at 11:12 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing thrust arm, sway bar link and lower control arm issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 6, 2016 at 11:21 a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that the thrust arm bushing, ball joints that attach to the thrust arms, both lower arm bushings and sway bars links had failed. CARS advised the repair facility to fax CARS an estimate with part numbers and we would call him back after the estimate was reviewed.On July 11, 2016 at 8:45 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed the vehicle without any repairs being performed. Since the vehicle was removed, the claim was closed.Second Claim: On July 13, 2016 at 1:32 p.m., a new repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing thrust arm/bushing, sway bar link and lower control arm issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On July 13, 2016 at 1:55 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was a noise under the vehicle. The repair facility advised that the front thrust arms have excessive play from the ball joints. The repair facility further advised that the front lower control arm bushings and the front sway bar had failed. CARS then went over our claim procedures.On July 14, 2016 at 11:41 a.m., CARS reviewed with the repair facility the customer’s options of having the parts shipped to the repair facility or taking cash allowance towards the repair of their choice. CARS then requested that the repair facility fax CARS an estimate with part numbers and we would call him back after the estimate was reviewed.On July 18, 2016 at 8:42 a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to get the status of the customer’s claim. The repair facility advised that they would telephone CARS with the part numbers and that the vehicle was still at the repair facility.On July 20, 2016 at 2:03 p.m., CARS left a voice message for the customer to telephone CARS.On July 21, 2016 at 10:31 a.m., CARS returned he customer's voice message giving CARS permission to speak to her friend and spoke to the customer's friend who advised that Ms. Walton's vehicle was no longer at the repair facility. CARS explained the procedures for opening a new claim.As of today, August 1, 2016, a new claim has not been opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.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 stated in your Service Contract under: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility must provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun." Here, CARS requested an estimate with the part numbers for failed the thrust arms/bushings, sway bar link and lower control arms to your vehicle so that we would be able to determine what replacement parts/assemblies are covered under the customer's Service Contract. After CARS receives and reviews this information, we will advise the repair facility/the customer on the options we have to assist the customer with the claim.Here, neither of the two repair facilities that opened claims on behalf of the customer’s vehicle supplied CARS with the requested estimate with part numbers so that we could move forward with the July 6, 2016 and July 13, 2016 claims made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle what components would be covered under the customer's Service Contract.Under the customer's Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what components are specifically CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with an estimate listing the requested part numbers before CARS can move forward with the mechanical issues the customer’s vehicle is experiencing.The customer has Service Contract coverage through August 19, 2019. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.JPM/jmm

Cars charged a $100 deductible to replace steering gear components that were rejected in a state safety inspection. Cars then refused to pay for the front end alignment that is a necessary part of the job according to numerous mechanics and repair shop owners I have spoken to.

C.A.R.S service is horrible , I own a 2007 Audi A4 , Its currently in a Auto shop for repairs, my check Engine light came on an the auto shop said it was the Turbo booster, the repair shop had to wait 2 weeks for a used Turbo from the warranty company , when it finally arrived it was leaking oil and damage, they return it to the C.A.R.S warranty and they sent another bad turbo , I haven't had a car since July 1st , I waiting for them to send a decent Turbo to the Auto shop. These people are cheap and send out old parts , $2000 dollar warrenty [redacted].