C.A.R.S Protection Plus

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

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 [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] Regards, [redacted] I rebuttle this contract warrenty because I feel that the warrenty company was set on only paying for what the felt should be paidWhich they new was not covered because because of the priceI feel this is a warrenty that is being sold that really has no coverage value at allI will be faxing a copy of said warrenty because ,would a consumer buy a warrenty that has no price on the parts that the warrent use hell no like I said this is a bogus warrenty.Revdex.com should really stop these companys from selling warrentys that reall do'nt cover what they say the cover I need a fax number for your Revdex.com head quarters Thak Revdex.com for responding so fast

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 belowThey have never supplied me with the third party inspection report the only one I have is fro *** I want the one that was from the third party inspectorI 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 gasketThe head bolts just don't stretch and engine fails as I mentioned this is a domino effect that made this happenIt states clearly on the paper work from *** this was not the reason of failure it was engine oil and coolant mixingThe mechanics mentioned that this does not just happenSo 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 causeI am in contact with an attorney regarding this matter and hopefully we can come to some conclusion Regards, [redacted]

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 15, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 23, at 10:a.m., CARS telephoned the customer in response to an email sent by the customer advising that his vehicle was leaking coolant and had timing belt, water pump and gasket issuesDuring that telephone call, we thoroughly searched our database and could not find any record of the selling dealer ever submitting to CARS a service contract application with payment for the above-referenced vehicleWe also advised that the selling dealer could still submit the service contract application with payment and proof of repairWe then referred the customer to the selling dealer Later that same day, CARS received the customer's service contract application; however, the service contract application was rejected because we were previously notified that the customer's vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance On September 23, 2014, we advised both the customer and the selling dealer in writing that the customer's service contract application was rejectedWe also advised that proof of repairs would be required upon resubmission for possible approval by CARSCopies of both letters are attached for your reviewAt no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract application On October 3, at 8:a.m., CARS telephoned the customer in response to an email sent by the customer advising us that his vehicle now repairedWe advised the customer that the selling dealer must resubmit the service contract application, payment, and proof of repairs to CARS for possible approvalWe then referred the customer back to the selling dealer On October 8, at 2:p.m., the customer advised us that the head gasket has been replaced on his vehicleWe then went over the rejection letter and advised the customer that the selling dealer must resubmit the service contract application, payment, and proof of repairs to CARS for possible approvalWe then referred him back to the selling dealer On October 9, the letter sent advising the service contract application rejection to the customer was returned to CARS as undeliverablePlease see attachment It was also thoroughly explained to the customer during the above-referenced telephone calls that if CARS was made aware of a mechanical failure, prior to the dealer submitting for acceptance the service contract application and payment, CARS would reject and send back the service contract application with paymentAt that time we would require proof of repairs before possible acceptance of said service contract applicationIn addition, if the dealer submitted a service contract application thirty (30) days or more after the purchase date of the vehicle, CARS would reject/send back the service contract application with payment and require an inspection before possible approval Please also be advised that by the customer’s signature on his service contract application, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinDirectly below the customer's signature, it clearly states: "The Service Contract Goes into effect when this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.SProtection Plus, Inc." In addition, the service contract application clearly states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: "Component failures that occur before C.A.R.SProtection Plus, Inc("C.A.R.S.") approves this Service Contract Application are not coveredC.A.R.Sdoes not warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.” The service contract also states at 2(d): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S." Since CARS was notified that the customer's vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance and no monies were accepted by CARS, the customer's vehicle currently does not have coverage under any of CARS' service contractsTherefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle Until CARS receives service contract applications with payment, we have no information that the customers even purchased a CARS service contractIt is the responsibility of the dealer to submit the service contract application with payment for approval and also the customers’ responsibility to contact CARS if they do not receive notification that their service contract was approved CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to the dealers and it is the dealer's responsibility to submit the service contract application with the required paperwork for service contract approvalCARS does not sell its service contracts to the public; therefore, until service contract application approval, the dealer is responsible to furnish CARS with all appropriate information for our review of the service contract applications CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect on the day they are received with payment and approved by C.A.R.SProtection Plus, IncSince CARS never received or approved a service contract application with payment from the selling dealer, the customer's vehicle does not have coverage under any of CARS’ service contractsAny further issues regarding this matter are between the customer and the selling dealer I hope this information is helpful to your inquiryShould you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office Sincerely, [redacted] General Counsel

am in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 15, (the attached "Service Contract”)On February 24, at 10:a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing intake manifold and rack and pinion issuesWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facilityAfter CARS reviewed the estimate faxed to us from the repair facility (see attached), CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the intake manifold for $and we could pay $to the repair facility for gasketsWe could also supply the rack and pinion for $We could also authorize $for fluids for the repairMitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $per hourTherefore, total labor covered was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,631.70, and we could supply the parts and assist with the cost of fluids and gaskets as stated above; and pay $towards labor or pay $1,towards the repair of your choiceWe then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decisionOn February 24, at 3:p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to inquire about the claim allowance and the supplied partsOn February 24, at 3:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like to have the parts shipped to the repair facilityOn February 25, at 8:a.m., CARS advised the repair facility on the estimated shipping time of the parts and gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs on the vehicleBy the customer's signature on his Ultimate Value Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of his service contractThe customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement 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 statedIt is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed componentHere, the supplied rack and pinion are remanufactured parts and the intake manifold is a used partThe supplied parts are covered pursuant to the customer's Service Contract through the service coverage's expiration date of January 16, To reiterate the above claim information, the customer had two (2) choices when his claim was processed: 1) have CARS ship the intake manifold and rack and pinion and receive $towards labor; or 2) accept the amount of $1,as a money allowance towards the repair of his vehicleIt was the customer's choice to have CARS supply the intake manifold and rack and pinion for the repair of his vehicleAccordingly, CARS authorized the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his Service ContractIt states in the customer’s at service contract at (m): ‘PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.Swill not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." If the customer was not satisfied with the length of time to process and ship the parts, he had the opportunity to take the cash allowanceFor the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to offer any further assistance for the February 24, mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicleTo reiterate, the supplied intake manifold and the rack and pinion that CARS selected for the customer's vehicle are pursuant to the terms and conditions and covered through the customer's Service Contract’s expiration date of January 16, When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

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

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

I have read the response sent by C.A.R.SProtection Plus and I continue to stand firmly on the grounds that I did not authorize the tear down of my car on January 19, Authorization was given by *** at ext: [redacted] with C.A.R.S Protection PlusI have faxed in a statement sent by [redacted] with [redacted] Auto Service stating that [redacted] requested this to be done; not myselfThe statement was faxed to me on 2/11/from Ritchies as date and time are on top of faxIn the response from CARS Protection Plus; it states that "the motor they could supply for the repairs has fewer miles than the engine currently in the customer's vehicle." However; as I have stated before: [redacted] at [redacted] s; and myself; were told by [redacted] (with CARS) that the number of miles would not be released to either one of usI find it very odd; that now it is being said that the motor they could supply has fewer milesIt states in their response "CARS did not authorize the teardown of my vehicle; which is not true; as *** did authorize repairs which are at a current total of $It is not my responsibility to pay for repairs that I did not authorizeIt also states in their response "To be clear, CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of the customers vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customers Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs." I am not asking for FULL COST of the repairs; as the total cost for repairs is $2,plus any fluids, filters, etc that I am responsible forI am asking for CARS to pay for labor that they authorizedThe amount of labor hours for tear down at $60/hr needs to be paid by CARS; as [redacted] authorized these repairs and I am not responsibleRegards, [redacted]

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 17, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintCARS previously responded directly to the customerAttached please find CARS' responseWe stand by our original decision and are unable to offer any further assistance with the October 9, engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me ____________________________________________________ I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: Our records show that on August 1, 2014, you purchased the above-referenced vehicle from [redacted] On that same date, you also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 8, (the attached Service Contract) Since the inception of your service contract two (2) claims have been opened by repair facilities on behalf of your vehicle as follow: FIRST CLAIM: On August 15, at 10:a.m., a claim was called in by [redacted] at [redacted] advising that your vehicle was experiencing water pump issuesWe then went over our claim proceduresDuring the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply a water pump for $and allow $toward fluids for the repairMitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take hours to complete, and your service contract pays $per hour for laborTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $71.12, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $towards labor or pay $towards the repair of your choiceYou chose to take the cash allowance toward the repair of your vehicleOn August 20, after receiving the final repair invoice, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $via checkThe claim was then closed SECOND CLAIM: On October 9, at 1:p.m., a claim was called in by [redacted] at [redacted] *** advising that your vehicle was experiencing engine issuesWe then went over our claim procedures and advised [redacted] to obtain your permission to tear down your vehicle to the point of failure and call or fax us with the repair facility's findings On October 13, at 1:p.m., in a recorded telephone call [redacted] advised CARS that the crank key broke off, damaging the key way, which caused the timing of your vehicle to be off; consequently damaging the heads and valves [redacted] also faxed the cause of failure to CARS (attached)On that same date at 1:p.mCARS advised [redacted] that pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract the crank key and damage caused by it was non-covered; therefore, we were unable to assist with the engine claim On October 13, at 2:p.m., our claims manager also explained in detail the claim with youAlso, on that same day a CARS' customer service representative reviewed your service contract with you and explained that pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract, the crank key is a non­covered component under your coverageThe customer service representative further advised that you were not eligible for rental benefits under your service contract By your signature on your service contract, you acknowledged that you read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinIt is stated in the service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph (q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a non-covered component." Here, the repair facility chosen by you to repair your vehicle found that the failure of a non-covered component (i.ecrank key), caused the failure of a covered component (i.eengine) It is stated in your service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and at Paragraph (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the crank key is not listed as covered components on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of these parts The rental benefits of your service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $per claim, if proof of rental is providedDown time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.Swill not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." Here, you are not entitled to rental assistance because the failures to your vehicle were not covered by your service contract Furthermore, under your service contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repairSaid service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform you what is specifically covered and your financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of your service contractTherefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the October 9, engine claim for all the reasons stated above When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

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 PARTI DID CALL AND LEFT MESSAGE ON NOVDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING THE HOLIDAY AND I ALSO CALLED [redacted] ** WHO REPLACED THE STARTER IN which at the end of OCT 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

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 28, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 26, On that same date she also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on December 15, (See attached Service Contract) On April 27, 2015, at 1:p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission line and transmission selector shaft seal issuesWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility On April 27, 2015, at 2:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the transmission lines and transmission selector shaft seal were leakingWe advised the repair facility that these were non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicleWe then closed the claim On April 27, 2015, at 2:p.m., the customer's husband telephoned CARS to check on the status of the mechanical claimWe advised that the transmission lines and transmission selector shaft seal are non-covered components under the customer's Service ContractWe advised that the Service Contracts are limited in their coverage On April 27, 2015, at 2:p.m., the customer called a CARS customer service representative requesting a list of covered and non-covered componentsThe customer service representative advised that we could send a copy of her Service Contract as covered components are listed on the Service ContractThe customer service representative further advised that CARS would need a written request for a copy of the customer’s contractThe customer was unhappy with that suggestion and was transferred to a supervisor On April 27, 2015, at 2:p.m., the customer advised the Customer Service Manager that she wanted a list of covered and non-covered componentsThe Customer Service Manager advised the customer that the covered parts are listed on the Service ContractThe customer became very upset and ended the telephone call By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions other Service ContractIt is stated in the service contract: “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Componentsnot listed regardless of failure.” The transmission line and transmission selector shaft seal are not listed for coverage; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair It is also stated on the customer’s Service Contract under "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS, GASKETS, & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." Here, the transmission selector shaft seal would not be covered because the customer's vehicle does not need to have any covered parts replaced Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repairSaid service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the April 27, claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract The customer has service contract coverage through December 15, If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service ContractIf the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of her Value Plus Service Contract When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely, [redacted] General Counsel

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 26, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 16, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract ( Months/15,Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 27, (the attached "Service Contract”)On February 24, at 1:p.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesWe then reviewed the terms and conditions of his service contract with him and our claim proceduresOn February 25, at 11:a.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the transmission on the customer’s vehicle had already been repairedWe advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair since the repairs were completed without prior authorizationWe then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with his father and our claim proceduresOn February 25, at 11:a.m., the customer's mother telephoned CARS to obtain the status of the customer's claimWe advised that since the repairs were performed without prior authorization from CARS, we were unable to assist with the repair pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service ContractWe then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and our claim proceduresThe customer's mother then advised us that she was contacting the Revdex.comOn February 25, at 3:p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems; specifically the transmissionWe then went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facilityOn February 25, at 4:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to his repair facility on February 16, The repair facility further advised that the transmission was already overhauled and ready to be installed in the customer's vehicleThe repair facility explained to CARS that the customer did not notify him that the customer had a Service Contract until the repair was basically completeThe repair facility advised that they would send CARS an invoice for our reviewOn February 27, at 8:a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Condition of the customer's Service Contract, we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the repairs were done without prior authorization from CARSOn February 27, at 1:p.m., CARS advised the customer’s mother that we could not assist with the claim because the repairs to the failed parts had been performed without a claim being opened by the repair facility and authorization given by CARSBy the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinThe service contract states at Paragraph 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARSThe service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Incwith an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information." The identification card also states: "C.A.R.Swill not be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first timeHere, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performedIt was not until February 25, at 3:p.m., that the repair facility telephoned CARS to open a claim and advised CARS that the transmission had already been overhauled and was ready to install in the customer's vehicleThe claim procedures outlined on the customer’s Service Contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that ab CARS' customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers' service contractIt also states clearly on the identification card clearly states "WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORKC.A.R.SProtection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice." As you can clearly see from the above paragraphs, the customer and the repair facility were fully aware that the repairs were performed prior to the February 25, opening of the transmission claimTo reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the transmission repairs to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant the customer’s Service Contract or to determine the amount we would be able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicleCARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer failed to follow the claim procedures that must be followed by ab CARS' customersIf the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of his service contract on October 27, or when the vehicle reaches 155,miles, whichever occurs first, the customer and any repair facility chosen by him must follow the claims procedures outlined above, which are contained on his Service Contract and the identification card provided to the customerIf it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service ContractWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below When a component breaks, it's going to leak The reply is a loophole so they don't have to pay anything The valve cover broke & thus leaked, but they don't cover it because of a leak The oil pan was cracked & thus leaked, but hey, it has a leak & we don't cover that! AN OIL PAN HOLDS OIL SO IF IT BREAKS IT'S GOING TO LEAK! This loophole gets them out of paying for ANYTHING because any item on a car that breaks is going to leak Just go over all the complaints here & see none were closed satisfactorily to the warranty-holder The seller of these warranties the used car dealers - how much do THEY get per policy sold??), oversell the worth of these things & the buyer thinks they're getting a solid warranty, but go though the logic of all their "exclusions" & you'll see they can deny paying for anything! How they can get an A+ rating here is beyond comprehension because, again, go though all the complaints here & none are resolved in the complainants favor After having this issue I did search on the internet & having known all I've found out about this company, I wouldn't have wasted the money & time dealing with this company I would also like to see a "Claim Paid/Claim Denied" ratio...I bet it's really lopsided! Whatever comes of this, so be it, but I am filing a Consumer Complaint with the Office of the Attorney General here in NJ and in Pennsylvania (which already sued them in - I guess they didn't learn!) Regards, [redacted]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Apparently, there is no way that customer could winCARS Protection is taking advantage of system and unfortunately the system does not do too much to help usI read a lot of complaints about this company( I regret myself not do it before I pay for it)They claimed it was inspected by the "independent" inspectorThe independent inspector is actually someone who received his paid from Cars Protection , therefore it cannot be called independent, because "coincidentally" for any inspection, the inspector provides the same diagnostic: "Not to be covered"In other words, the inspector works in function who pays his services CARS Protection, which obviously is less than CARS could pay its obligationIn order to verify if CARS Protection is honoring the contract I would like to get the records about how many claims they receive and how many of them are actually paidIf my assumption is correct then we can get the conclusion the Cars Protection is taken advantage of business and the system by selling "insurances" that they know in advance that they are NOT going to cover When someone buys a used car, the customer cannot checked the car internally, that is the reason why we (the customers) buy a warranty to prevent any issueHowever, Cars Protection knows that and selling "insurance" that they know in advance they are not going to cover because their "independents" inspectors are going to say the same thingIt is a good business, isn't it? Unfortunately, we, the customers are naive buying this type of insurance for getting nothing, we just loose our moneyI formally request the information from the "independent" inspector, name and licenseAlso, I would like to get from Cars Protection the information about how many claims were received and how many of them were actually paid themOtherwise I will take this issue to [redacted] Consumer Affairs complaint, General Attorney of [redacted] ***, media (newspaper and television), and social webs to share this type of business.Thanks in advance, Regards, [redacted]

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 22, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on September, 19, and on that same date she applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles)The customer’s Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on September 26, (See attached "Service Contract")Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract only one (1) claim was called in from a repair facility on January 19, at 3:p.madvising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issuesWe then went over claim procedures with the repair facilityAfter the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and repair estimate (attached) on January 20, 2015, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply an engine for $Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take hours to complete and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $per hourTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,CARS could supply the engine as stated above and pay $towards labor or pay $1,towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer's decisionTo date, we have not heard back from the repair facility regarding the customer's decisionThe customer's complaint states that she is unhappy with the engine price, diagnosis and tear down, labor rate and time; however, by the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and ConditionsThe 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 engine we used the cost of the engine to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously statedIt is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed componentHere, the engine CARS could supply has fewer miles than the engine currently in the customer’s vehicleThe Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph (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 damageYou 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 coveredThis increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first timeWe were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failureTherefore, it is the customer's responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down chargesAlso, the customer's service contract states at: "LABOR: The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guideThe hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $per hourShould your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference." Here, the repair facility's labor rate is $per hour and they are also charging a flat labor rate of $1,for the engine repairPursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract she is responsible for the difference in labor rate and timeCARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductibleHowever, CARS is still willing to authorize the January 19, engine claim in the amount of $1,519.00, once we receive confirmation if the customer wants us to ship the engine or she wants to use the money allowance for the claimWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

RE: COMPLAINT ID # [redacted] MERCEDES CLVIN (Last8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms***: I am in receipt of your letter dated February 17, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 2, On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 9, (See attached Service Contract)On December 4, 2014, CARS received a coverage cancellation request from the customerThe customer’s request for cancellation of his Service Contract was processed on December 5, The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained thereinThe customer's service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as statedC.A.R.Sshall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicleIf a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor the Service Contract, less any claims paidThe refund shall be paid to the lien holderAfter days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancelThe lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.Sfor the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid." CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisionsHere, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the service contractTherefore, CARS is directed by [redacted] state statute to refund a pro-rated amount of the monies CARS received for the Service Contract, less any claims paid and less a 10% service feeCARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers and the dealers have the right to make profits on the service contractsSince the selling dealers pay CARS for a customer's service contract, we send our portion of the refund to the selling dealerThis provides the selling dealer the opportunity to refund the customer their portion of the profit of the monies due the customerHere, the customer’s selling dealer remitted the amount of $for his Service ContractTherefore CARS calculated the customer's prorated refund as follows: Amount received from dealer for service contract: Term of service contract - months $ Less seven (7) months proration $per month - $ Less stop payment fee - $ Less service fee - $ Total refund owed by CARS $ Total refund owed by Dealer $ Total amount due Customer from the Dealer $ 1, On December 9, 2014, CARS mailed the dealer check nofor our portion of the refundThis check was never received by the dealer and the check was never cashedAfter thirty (30) days, CARS stopped payment on check noThereafter, on January 22, CARS sent the attached letter and check no [redacted] for our portion of the refund to the dealerAny remaining monies are the responsibility of the selling dealerOn February 18, 2015, CARS spoke to the dealership regarding the customer's Revdex.com complaint and the monies due the customerWe were advised by the dealership that they refunded the customer the full amount he was owed from both CARS and the dealershipIf this is not the case, please advise CARSWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

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 am in receipt of your letter dated December 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI 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 vehicleOn November 12, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (Months/15,Miles) and was accepted with payment by CARS (the attached "Service Contract”)On October 31, at 11:a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing starter issuesOn November 14, CARS paid the repair facility $via credit card towards a starter and labor pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contractThe starter has a warranty through October 31, as evidenced on the attached invoiceCARS agree that repairs to vehicles are needed even during holidaysIf 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 dayAll voice messages left during non-business hour are processed accordinglyCARS 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 vehicleHowever, on December 3, 2014, CARS issued check no [redacted] , in the amount of $to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contractHere, the starter supplied during the October 31, claim has a three (3) year parts warranty; therefore, the customer should follwith 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 repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious 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 deductibleWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

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 ListAccording 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] ***

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, at 9:a.m., advising that he purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 31, and the voltage was fluctuatingThe customer further advised a CARS customer service representative that the vehicle may be experiencing alternator issuesDuring 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 vehicleWe advised the customer that a service contract is not active until we receive it with payment, process the service contract application, and approve itWe then referred the customer back to the selling dealerThereafter, 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 acceptanceOn 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 repairAt no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract applicationDirectly 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.SProtection Plus, Inc("CARS.") approves this Service Contract application are NOT coveredC.A.R.Sdoes 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 vehicleThe customer also states in his consumer complaint that he telephoned CARS to find a repair facility for his vehicleTherefore, 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 approvalWhen a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact meSincerely [redacted] General Counsel