Sign in

E C P, Inc.

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about E C P, Inc.? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews E C P, Inc.

E C P, Inc. Reviews (42)

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/04) */
*** **
RE: Case Number XXXXXXXX
Consumer: Mr*** ***
We are in receipt of the complaint that your office received from the claimant regarding the claim denial under his *** warranty number *** XXXXXX
I
have pulled the claimants file and conducted a thorough review
The claimant originally filed a claim with our office on *** ** for the rust damage located on his vehicle's left bed side panelUpon review of this claim submission, we determined the damage on the vehicle was a surface rust conditionSince the customer does not have surface rust coverage based on the terms of his warranty, a denial letter was sent to the customer via email advising him of his claim denialIn addition, we advised the customer to have the non-covered damage repaired in order to continue coverage in this area on his vehicle
The claimant contacted our office via email on *** *** advising that he was not in agreement with our decision to deny his claimCertainly we allowed the claimant to present his case on the reasons for his disagreement with our denial decisionThe claimant indicated that he felt the rust damage on the vehicle was not a surface rust condition but rather a rust perforation conditionIn an effort to assist this claimant we requested proof of rust perforation so that we could substantiate the damage with our insurers and get this claim covered for himIn order to substantiate rust perforation (a hole through the sheet metal) we asked that the claimant probe the area with a small paperclip and take a picture of the paperclip inserted into the area displaying that the metal is rusted through and a hole is present in the sheet metalThe claimant never submitted this proof of perforation to us and therefore his claim was closed for a second time
On *** *** 2014, two years after the initial claim submission, we received a second claim from the claimant for the same area that he previously claimed in *** of Since rust has progressive properties, it worsens over timeIf rust is left on a vehicle without repair, it will spread and become increasingly problematicWe cannot be held liable for rust that has been left on the vehicle to continue to deteriorate over the months and yearsSince the photos showing proof of rust perforation were not sent in within a reasonable amount of time, and the non-covered damage was not repaired as we requested, we could not be of further assistance
In closing, based on the fact that the request for further dispute information (photos) regarding the damage on the claimant's vehicle was not submitted to us within a reasonable amount of time, and the rust damage has progressed since our initial correspondence, we are unable to provide compensation in this instance
We regret that the claimant is unhappy with our decision but we remain confident that it is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty
We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the claimants claim denialIf you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time
Respectfully Yours,
*** ***
Claims Supervisor
***@ecpinc.net
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 13, 2014/03/19) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The paint did hold the corrosion to a point where a paperclip would not easily go through the sheet metalRemember the claim was denied due to surface rust which in no way occurredAll corrosion started from the inside out as verified by body experts, not an adjuster sitting at a desk looking at a picture of the bubbling paintIt took nearly years for the paint to chip off and expose the corrosion which I knew would eventually happen ( and I patiently waited for after indicating this to the business)The vehicle has been well maintained and I turned the second claim in as soon as it was indisputable a perforation existedI understand the business is not profitable to pay out unworthy claims but should be held accountable for following through when a legitimate claim is filedI'm tired of getting the run around and prepared take the case as far as possible to prevent this company from ditching its responsibility to conduct business ethically and follow through with legitimate warranty claims
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2014/03/17) */
*** ***
RE: Case Number XXXXXXXX
Consumer: Mr*** ***
We are in receipt of the additional correspondence that your office received from the claimant regarding the claim denial under his Z *** warranty number *** XXXXXX
At the time the customer disputed his denial decision, we certainly gave him an opportunity to provide evidence that there was in fact rust perforation on his vehicleWe wanted to make sure the customer was getting full advantage of the protection purchased
In order to substantiate a claim approval, we must provide proof of damage with the insurers that back our warrantiesBody shop estimates do not provide proof of damageThese estimates show a repair method that a shop will use in order to fix damage based on their recommendationThe claimant was advised to provide photos showing a probe through the sheet metal that illustrated rust perforationThis probe can be achieved by taking a paperclip and pushing it through the metal as we suggestedIf the area was in fact perforated, the paperclip would easily go through the sheet metal indicating a hole (perforation)We did not receive these photos for two (2) years after the initial requestRust will only continue to deteriorate sheet metal over time if left without repair
Unfortunately we cannot be held liable for rust that has been left on the vehicle to continue to deteriorate over the months and yearsThe photos were not submitted within a reasonable amount of time to be eligible for coverage
We realize an unfortunate situation has arisen in this case, however we remain confident that our decision is accurate and compliant based on the terms of the warranty
Respectfully Yours,
*** ***
Claims Supervisor
***@ecpinc.net

We are in receipt of the correspondence your office received regarding the denial under the Protector warranty
"Tahoma",sans-serif;">
I have pulled the claimants file and conducted a thorough reviewUpon review of the claim information submitted were able to make the determination that the claimed damage on the vehicle was old.
Below please find the Vehicle Owner’s Duties included in the Protector warranty:
VEHICLE OWNER’S DUTIES:
Failure of the customer to regularly inspect the vehicle in order to be able to file a claim within sixty (60) days following the occurrence of covered damage will relieve manufacturer of all legal responsibilities under this warranty
Please note the warranty states all damage must be reported within days of occurrence. Since this damage was not reported within the specified timeline, we were unable to provide coverage for the claim.
A denial letter was sent to the claimant advising the claim was being denied due to the fact that it is beyond the terms of the warranty. Our warranties are backed by an insurance company who has set forth certain terms/conditions that must be adhered to. Since the damage exceeds the terms of the warranty, we cannot provide compensation for this claim
We regret the claimant is unhappy with our decision but we remain confident that it is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty
We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to this claim denial. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time
Respectfully Yours,
*** ***
Claims Manager

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/26) */
We are in receipt of your complaint under warranty *** XXXXXXThis customer's claim is currently in progressAn independent adjuster will contact the customer to complete a vehicle inspectionOnce in receipt of the inspection
report, we will proceed with the claims process
Thank you,
*** ***
Claims Manager
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/08/26) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept the response from this businessIt has been almost days since I file this claimThey could have sent the adjuster at the beginning of this process, but told me to go to a body shopI asked them were any particular body shops that they wanted me to go to and they say noNow they are trying to work backwards on this problem with an "Independent Adjuster" which more than likely this company will try to wait after Sept 5th to go by so they will not have this report file against themIf they really wanted to fix this problem it should have not taken days to just say we are going to have a "Independent Adjuster" to come look at my carThey are trying to not honor the agreementThey even try to called the body shop that I told them that I was going to see to change up their words so they would not have to pay for fixing the front bumperThis is a brand new car with only one owner, which is meI do not think its fair to get off on service members who serve their country with trying to make up things such as fading and chalking because its on the exclusions of the contractI know what fading is and they know it as wellIf this is not resolve with a refund or a complete repair of my front bumper, I will take further action till I have a resolve
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2014/09/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did submitted the information to ECP based off what the instructions said from their websiteThey did not called me, I had to call them over five times just to tell me to take my car to the a body shopAgain after I sent the estimate to company, they did not call meNot one time during this process did they called me at allWhen I called to speak to someone it happen to be that a claims Representative were not at their phone or out for the day, but it was very unusual that the person I would try to get in touch with would send me an email from their office email seconds after I hung up and send them an email stating that I was waiting for them to call me backI left messages on their voice mail and gave them my numberThis also still does not explain why it would take over days to get an "Independent Adjuster" to come clear things upThis company should had first sent adjuster out since I had documentation that this car had one of their warrantiesThey only sent out the adjuster so they can save face and do not want to lose business or ratings with the Revdex.com
This company again is trying to get over on me and put words into Factory Spec CollisionFSC told me that the paint was fadingFSC also told me that whomever called try to put words in their mouth that were exclusionary terms from the contractEPC was attempting to lead and confuse FSC into saying things which are not trueThe manager at FSC told me it was odd they were asking questions which FSC sent pictures to EPC to look at the car so they could see what the damage wasI also went to the local dodge dealership last Friday and they told me that the third party who is the maker of the environmental warranty will have to fix this faded paint issueIf this ECP INC will not give me my money back for this warranty, I want my front bumper repainted If they will not do that, I will pursue further action until there is a resolve
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2014/09/16) */
We are in receipt of the inspection report from *** *** *** regarding the paint damage on this vehicle
The independent adjuster has indicated the damage on the vehicle is the result of paint overspray, possible stone chips, as well as peeling paint
Based on the terms of the warranty, this type of damage is not covered
The paint protection that was applied to this vehicle provides protection against fading, chalking, loss of gloss, weather induced acid rain, tree sap, or bird droppings
Based on the information we have, including the adjusters report, we have declined to make any change in the original decision to deny this claim
Sincerely,
*** ***
Claims Supervisor

August 16, RE: Case #
""> We are in receipt of the correspondence your office received regarding the complaint under the Protector warranty. We have been in contact with the customer directly and have addressed their concerns. Respectfully Yours, Jennifer *** Assistant Claims Manager

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/04/23) */
Revdex.com Chicago & Northern Illinois
Case # XXXXXXXX
We are in receipt of the complaint that your office received from our customer regarding the claim he filed for the milk, coffee, tea, ink, crayon, juice, and soda
stains on the fabric seats and carpet in his vehicle
I have pulled the customer's file and conducted a thorough review
This claim was submitted to our office via email on at 4:23pm on April 16thSince the claim was received after 4:00pm central time we did not start processing until April 17thPlease note the claims processing time takes anywhere from 3-business days to completeThe claim was sent to a mobile interior technician on April 22ndThe customer was advised via email that a technician will contact him to schedule an appointment at his convenience to remove the stains on the interior of his vehicleThe technician will go directly to the customer's home or place of business to complete the serviceOnce the service is completed, the technician will bill us directly for the service
At this point I did confirm with the customer that he was contacted and the technician will be out to service his vehicle at his home on Friday
We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the claimants concernsIf you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time
Respectfully Yours,
*** ***
Claims Supervisor
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/04/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I will not consider this case to be closed until the technician has been onsite and completed the workOnce the work has been completed to my satisfaction I will be happy to consider the matter resolvedUntil then it needs to stay open should any other issues arise with the technician and completeing the service
Final Consumer Response /* (450, 8, 2014/04/25) */
The consumer indicated ONLINE that the business responded to this complaint to his/her satisfactionHe/she also stated:
Technician came today and completed the serviceThis can now be closed

My advice ......stay away from this company and their products I bought "rust protection" from them and after a ridiculous claim process was told my rust issue was not covered because the rust was not "perforated" When I asked for a description of this I received no response Also when I submitted my claim with pictures, description of the rust, my policy certificate and other docs I was told I needed a quote to have it fixed before they would determine if it was covered They could have described "perforation" and I could have evaluated if a quote was needed Instead I wasted more time going through their process
When the product was sold to me at *** I was told it gave me year rust protection not year "rust perforation" protection.....whatever that is
DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT!

+2

June 7, RE: Case #
"background: white;">*** We are in receipt of the complaint your office received regarding the claim under The Protector warranty *** ***. I have pulled the customer’s file and conducted a thorough review.
We received the claim information from the customer on January 4, On January 7, we sent the claim information to a mobile interior technician to clean ink stains and repair tears on the front passenger and driver arm rest. On March 3, the customer spoke to the claims representative and advised them the stains and damage remainWe requested additional photos of the damage. We received the photos the same day On March 4, we sent correspondence to the customer informing them the repair remedies exceed the repair limitations of their Pre-Driven warranty. We also informed them ink stains are limited to a cleaning or dying of the fabric, leather, and/or vinyl surfaces March 7, the customer left a voicemail for the claims manager. The claims manager tried calling back but got a busy signalShe tried calling more time with the same result March 8, the customer left another voicemail for the claims managerThe claims manger tried calling the customer three times. The first two times the calls went to a busy signal, the third call rang three times and went into a voicemail. The claims manager was unable to leave a voicemail as the mail box was full March 28, the claims manager received an email from the customer regarding the damage that remains. The claims manager responded to the customer on March 29, advising the customer of the pre-driven coverage This customer’s warranty falls under the Pre-Driven coverage The eligibility for pre-driven coverage is any vehicle older than current plus five model years old from the date of application. The customer’s vehicle is a and the warranty products were applied in Below please find the Repair Limitations as stated in The Protector warranty: In closing, we are unable to proceed further with replacement of the damaged areas as the warranty does not provide coverage for replacement based on the terms of the pre-driven vehicle protection warrantyOur warranties are backed by an insurance company who has set forth certain terms/conditions that must be adhered to. Since the damage exceeds the terms of the warranty, we cannot provide further compensation for this claimWe regret that the customer is unhappy with our decision but we remain confident that it is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty ECP Incorporated offers quality vehicle appearance protection products, and promptly pays valid warranty claims without delay. Our warranties are backed by an A-rated insurance carrier, and are recognized as the best in the business. We appreciate our customer’s past patronage, and regret we were unable to assist further in this instance We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the claim dispute. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time Respectfully Yours, *** *** Assistant Claims Manager

+1

EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE AND VERY POSITIVE WORK ETHIC FROM THE EMPLOYEES
YOU DON'T SEE THAT KIND OF WORK ETHIC THESE DAYS!

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/10/10) */
October 10,
We are in receipt of the complaint that your office received regarding the corrosion damage denial under the Protector warranty
I have pulled the claimants file and conducted a thorough reviewThere are several
things that we request from a customer when they file a claim with our office so that we may fully review the nature of the claim and make a decision on the authorization or denial of the claimOne of the items requested from the claimant is a completed exterior claim formUpon review of this claim form, we were able to make the determination that the rust damage on the vehicle was old rust damageThe damage on the vehicle was so severe that based on the estimate the customer submitted from *** *** *** *** all of the panels now require replacementIn addition, the customer indicated the damage was initially identified on January 15, Our office did not receive this claim until September 20,
Below please find the Vehicle Owner Requirements included in the Protector warranty:
VEHICLE OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES:
BCUSTOMER'S DUTY: Failure of the customer to regularly inspect the vehicle in order to be able to file a claim within sixty (60) days following the occurrence of covered damage will relieve manufacturer of all legal responsibilities under this warranty
Please note item (B) whereby it states that all damage must be reported within days of occurrenceSince this damage was not reported within the specified timeline, we the manufacturer under this warranty are relieved of any legal responsibility to remit payment or authorize repairs for this claimIf rust is left on a vehicle without repair, it will indefinitely spread and become increasingly problematicWe cannot be held liable for rust that has been left on the vehicle to continue to deteriorate over the months and years
A Denial letter was sent to the claimant via email advising that the claim was being denied due to the fact that it is beyond the terms of the warrantySince the information we have on file substantiates the fact that the rust has been present beyond days, we cannot be held liableOur warranties are backed by an insurance company who has set forth certain terms/conditions that must be adhered toSince the damage exceeds the terms of the warranty, we cannot provide compensation for this claim
In closing, the damage on this vehicle was not reported within the day time period required under the warranty, and we cannot offer any compensation for this claimWe regret the claimant is unhappy with our decision but we remain confident that it is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty
We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to this claim denialIf you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time
Respectfully Yours,
*** ***
Claims Manager
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/10/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The claim regarding "covered" damages was made within the day period required directly following the discovery of the damageIn January while inspecting the vehicle, I noticed that there was surface rust forming on the rear wheel wellsMy vehicle was then six years oldWhile I was very disappointed with the performance of the EPC products and application I realized that the warranty for surface corrossion only covered the first five years of the car's lifeI did not notify ECP, Incbecause there was no requirement to do soIn August of this year (XXXX) I went to *** to get an estimate of the cost to repair the rustIt was at that time that they showed me that the rust had gotten more extensive and that there were some spots where the rust had perforatted the metalThe warranty covers corrosion perforation for ten yearsIt was at that time that I decided to file a claim with ECP, Inc*** said that they would assist in filing the claimWhile they called and requested information regarding filing a claim, they did not get the processing information they were promisedAfter several weeks I said I would file the claimI called ECP, Incand requested a formAlthough promised one by e-mail I did not receive it and had to make a second request a week laterI finally received a form which I submitted with the other required documentation within one dayThis filing was still well within the days required by the warrantyRespondant acknowledges receiving the claim on September even after the delays caused by ECP in providing the claim forms
In the respondant's response to the complaint she misquotes the warranty saying that "all" damage must be reported with daysThe warranty says "covered" damage must be reported within daysThe January damage was not "covered" damageThe August damage is "covered" damage and was reported within days
The respondant also states in her response that they can not be held responsible for rust that is allowed to remain on the vehicle to continue to deteriorateWhile that sounds like common sense
the warranty has no such requirementIt says that corrosion perforation damage is covered for up to ten yearsRust is an oxidation processTherefore, rust always begins on the surface where the metal is exposed to oxygen in the airHow can corrosion perforation damage ever happen if the car's owner is expected to repair the damage before it happensIf we are to stick to the language of the warranty, corrosion perforation damage is covered without the exclusions the respondant arbitarily addsIt may not be practical or financially feasible for an owner to repair uncovered damage immediately
If we wish to put common sense over the conditions set in the warranty, than the respondant should pay the claim as it is very apparent to anyone looking at my vehicle that the the respondant's materials applied were ineffective in preventing corrosionCars that did not receive any anti-corrosion treatments have less corrosion than mineThat is common senseIf we are to look at the provisions of the warranty only, we find that there is no provision requiring the reapir of surface rust in order to cover corrosion perforationThere are requirements in the warranty that require regular car washes and prompt use of touon nicks and scratchesI have been enrolled in a program that allows unlimited car washes for a monthly feeI take advantage of those washes frequentlyThere are no nicks and scratches
The respondant was given opportunities to examine the warranted vehicle but refused both times stating that they did not need to see it or have it examined by an independent appraiser
To summarize:
1.The "covered damage" was reported via a claim form within the day period requiredThe only delays caused in making the claim was EOP's freqiemt delays in providing requested claim materials
The respondant misquoted the warranty saying "all" damage was required to be reported when the warranty says "covered" damage
The respondant adds restrictions not stated in the warranty regarding the coverage of corrosion perforation damage
All restrictions stated in the warranty have been complied with except the respondant's responsibilities
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2014/11/06) */
We are in receipt of the additional correspondence from the Protector customer
In an effort to resolve this matter we will contact the claimant direct by phone
Thank you,
Claims Department
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 16, 2014/11/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I received a call from the respondent on 11/10/They have offered to return the purchase price of their products applicationThey have given me time as I will be out of state a few days to research what that cost was in and to make a decisionI will respond when I return after 10/18/

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/04) */
[redacted] 2014
RE: Case Number XXXXXXXX
Consumer: Mr. [redacted]
We are in receipt of the complaint that your office received from the claimant regarding the claim denial under his [redacted] warranty number ** XXXXXX
I have...

pulled the claimants file and conducted a thorough review.
The claimant originally filed a claim with our office on [redacted] 2012 for the rust damage located on his vehicle's right rear door shell. As a part of our claim process, if necessary, we utilize independent third party appraisal companies to evaluate damages. This provides claimants with an unbiased independent avenue so that their claim can be evaluated further without influence. The appraisers are not provided with any warranty information and are unaware of the coverage that the customer is eligible for under the [redacted] In order to give the claim a more complete evaluation, we sent an appraiser from [redacted] out to look at the claimant's vehicle and provide a full inspection report for our review.
Upon receipt of the inspection report from [redacted] we were able to determine the rust damage on the vehicle was a surface rust condition. Since the surface rust portion of the claimants warranty expired in March of 2010, we were unable to offer compensation for this claim. A claim denial letter was sent to the customer on [redacted] 2012. In addition, we advised the customer to have the non-covered damage repaired in order to continue coverage in this area on his vehicle.
On [redacted] 2012 the claimant contacted our offices and left a voicemail advising that he was in disagreement with our denial decision. On [redacted] 2012 we returned the claimants phone call and left him a message advising him that certainly we will give him the opportunity to dispute his denial. We asked that the claimant provide photos showing a probe (paperclip) going through the sheet metal to substantiate a hole through the panel. Upon receipt of this photo, we would re-evaluate the claim for coverage.
On [redacted] 2014 we received the requested photo from the claimant via email. Nineteen (19) months had passed [redacted] our request for these photos. Since rust has progressive properties, it worsens over time. If rust is left on a vehicle without repair, it will spread and become increasingly problematic. We cannot be held liable for rust that has been left on the vehicle to continue to deteriorate over the months and years. Since the photo sent in to substantiate the rust perforation was not sent in within a reasonable amount of time, we cannot be of further assistance.
In closing, based on the fact that the request for further dispute information (photos) regarding the damage on the claimant's vehicle was not submitted to us within a reasonable amount of time, and the rust damage has progressed since our initial correspondence, we are unable to provide compensation in this instance. Our warranties are backed by an insurance company who has set forth certain terms/conditions that must be adhered to.
We regret that the claimant is unhappy with our decision but we remain confident that it is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty.
We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the claimants claim denial. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time.
Respectfully Yours,
[redacted]
Claims Supervisor
[redacted]@ecpinc.net
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 14, 2014/03/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have pictures that clearly shows that the rust always started from the inside and continues to this date and now is perforated. Per the warranty states, perforation is covered for 10 years. Once again, there never was surface rust when the independent inspector looked at my vehicle and falsified the report.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2014/03/17) */
arch 17, 2014
RE: Case # XXXXXXXX
Consumer: Mr. [redacted]
We are in receipt of the additional correspondence that your office received from the claimant regarding the claim denial under his [redacted] warranty number ** XXXXXX
At the time the customer disputed his denial decision, we certainly gave him an opportunity to provide evidence that there was in fact rust perforation on his vehicle. We wanted to make sure the customer was getting full advantage of the protection purchased. In order to substantiate a claim approval, we must provide proof of damage with the insurers that back our warranties. The claimant was advised to provide photos showing a probe through the sheet metal that illustrated rust perforation. We did not receive these photos until nineteen (19) months after the initial request.
Unfortunately we cannot be held liable for rust that has been left on the vehicle to continue to deteriorate over the months and years. The photos were not submitted within a reasonable amount of time to be eligible for coverage.
The adjusters that we utilize to do inspections on claimants vehicles are independent third party inspectors. These adjusters are unaware of warranty coverage and terms, they have no knowledge of the product the customer has purchased. Based on their unfamiliarity with the warranty/product purchased, they would have no reason to falsify an inspection report. The adjusters are licensed and trained professionals who operate with honesty and integrity.
Respectfully Yours,
[redacted]
Claims Supervisor
[redacted]@ecpinc.net

March 11, 2016
"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">We are in receipt of the complaint your office received from the above referenced customer regarding the claim denial under the Protector warranty.  
I have pulled the customers file and conducted a thorough review.  According to the information and documents received, the consumer submitted a claim to our office under the Protector Corrosion Perforation Protection Warranty on February 28, 2016.

There are several things that we request from a customer when they file a claim with our office so we may fully review the nature of the claim and make a decision on the authorization or denial of the claim.   Two of these required items are color photos of the damage, and an itemized estimate to repair the damage.  Upon further review of the photos and estimate the customer submitted, we were able to make the determination that the rust damage on the vehicle was old rust damage.   The photos submitted substantiate the fact that the damage was present far beyond the 60 day time period required to submit a claim. 

Below please find an excerpt from the warranty the customer has in their possession:

B. Failure of the customer to regularly inspect the vehicle in order to be able to file his claim within sixty (60) days following the occurrence of covered damage will relieve manufacturer of all legal responsibilities under this warranty.

Please note item (B) whereby it states all damage must be reported within 60 days of occurrence.  Since this damage was not reported within the specified timeline, we the manufacturer under this warranty are relieved of any legal responsibility to remit payment or authorize repairs for this claim.  This information is clearly stated on the customer’s warranty.

On March 8, 2016 we sent a letter to the claimant via email advising the claim was being denied due to the fact that it is beyond the terms of the warranty.   Since the photos provided substantiate the rust has been present beyond 60 days, we cannot be held liable.  Our warranties are backed by an insurance company who has set forth certain terms/conditions that must be adhered to.  Since the damage exceeds the terms of the warranty, we cannot provide compensation for this claim.

In closing, the damage on the customer’s vehicle was not reported within the 60 day time period required under the warranty and we cannot offer any compensation on this claim.  While we are sympathetic to the customer, we are obligated by the insurer who backs our warranties to adjudicate claims in accordance with the terms of the warranty. 

[redacted] Incorporated offers quality vehicle appearance protection products, and promptly pays valid warranty claims without delay.  Our warranties are backed by an A-rated insurance carrier, and are recognized as the best in the business.  We appreciate the customers past patronage, and regret that we were unable to pay the claim in this instance.

Respectfully Yours,

[redacted]
Claims Manager

thats a bunch of bull---- get real they make alot of money from the unknowing

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/06/16) */
We are in receipt of the complaint filed under warranty ASXGE XXXXXX.
A thorough review of the file has been conducted regarding the paint damage on the 2007 Nissan Maxima. Correspondence has been sent to the customer via email as of...

June 16, 2014.
In the event that the customer has additional comments or concerns they may contact me at any time for assistance.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Claims Supervisor
[redacted]@ecpinc.net
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2014/06/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
ECP Inc. has written an email to me saying that they would in fact pay for the the repair to my cars paint damage. How ever, they still insist that the damage is not covered under the warranty. The independent assessor an I both believe that the damage is specifically covered under the warranty agreement.
My concern is that a customer will always need to get a third party, like the Revdex.com, involved before ECP will cover warranty repairs. Most complainants will not pursue the issue. This will allow ECP to continue selling protection that they are not willing to cover.
Thank you for your help in this matter. I truly appreciate it.

+1

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/03/06) */
We are in receipt of the complaint that your office received from our customer regarding the claim she filed under her warranty. We have re-examined the file and conducted a thorough review.
On January 23, 2015 we received the...

customers claim submission. Based on the information provided we were able to determine the rust damage on the vehicle was old rust damage. In addition, the rust damage on the vehicle was so severe that it now required a replacement panel.
The customer contacted us via phone on February 12, 2015 advising she did not agree with our decision to deny this claim. She stated she noticed this surface rust condition a few years ago and was advised for the condition to worsen prior to reporting the claim. Rust has progressive properties and will inevitably worsen over time. Our trained warranty administrators would not advise a customer to allow a rust condition to worsen prior to reporting a claim as the cost to repair would then increase and the condition may start to affect other areas of the vehicle. If rust is left on a vehicle without repair, it will indefinitely spread and become increasingly problematic. Unfortunately we cannot be held liable for rust that has been left on the vehicle to continue to deteriorate over the months and years.
Per the terms of the warranty, "failure of the customer to regularly inspect the vehicle in order to be able to file a claim within sixty (60) days following the occurrence of covered damage will relieve manufacturer of all legal responsibilities under this warranty".
Unfortunately this claim was not reported within the specified sixty (60) day reporting period and is beyond the terms of the warranty.
We feel our decision to deny this claim is accurate and in full compliance of the warranty terms. Certainly we appreciate this customers past patronage, and regret that were unable to provide payment on her claim in this instance.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Claims Manager
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/03/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We purchased a warranty which had 2 specified time periods to it. The first warranty covered surface rust and was good for 5 years. The warranty we are trying to claim on states "new vehicles 10 years corrosion perforation". We discovered the perforation in early Feb and therefore are still within the 60 day timeframe. The perforation warranty has items that are specifically excluded but perforation from untreated surface rust is not one of them. Furthermore, we did contact ECP when we discovered the surface rust but at that point in time we were past the 5 year surface rust warranty period, but the perforation warranty was still applicable and were advised to notify them when it was a hole. Our primary issue with the denial is that if they don't cover perforations caused by old surface rust then that should be part of the warranty exclusions and it is not. We had no idea they would not cover this given the language around what it did cover and what it did not. The contract we have, I would consider false advertising and essentially a bait and switch at point of sale given the repeated denial we have received for an exclusion that isn't specifically stated in the warranty. We DID contact ECP within 60 days of the perforation occurring and now they are making up their own rules. We are still 100% unsatisfied with ECP's and how they are refusing to stand behind their product and warranty.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/03/27) */
I am in receipt of the additional correspondence regarding this rust claim denial.
As the customer advised, the damage on this vehicle originated as a surface rust condition and was initially identified a few years ago. The surface rust protection was expired at the time the damage was initially identified by the customer and the corrosion was left to deteriorate further. Since the rust was left on the vehicle and corroded further over time, we cannot provide compensation for this claim.
In view of the above we cannot be of further assistance and regret we are unable to meet the consumer's expectations in this matter. We do feel this claim has been adjudicated properly and within the terms of the warranty.
Thank you
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/04/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We conformed to the warranty as we contacted ECP as soon as perforation was visible. There was absolutely no indication of surface rust from 0-5 years as the warranty indicates it would cover. We contacted them within the 5-10 year timeframe for perforation, which the warranty covers, Immediately as it happened. They continue to indicate we are at fault, but there is no verbiage in the warranty indicating we are at fault. Nothing in the warranty states that after 5 years, you must still contact them for surface rust, even though it is not covered after 5 years in order for the 5-10 year perforation warranty to still be valid, in which they are implying in their response. Plain and simple, 0-5 years surface rust, 5-10 years perforation. If no remediation is offered, we have no issue taking this to court as we are in the right.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/04/13) */
We are in receipt of the correspondence regarding this customers concerns.
An email was sent to this customer today that answered his questions. In the event that this customer has further questions or concerns, he may contact us at...

any time for assistance. Our toll free number is X-XXX-XXX-XXXX and we are happy to assist with a live operator Monday thru Friday 8am - 4pm central standard time.
Thank you

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/28) */
We are in receipt of the complaint regarding customer [redacted]. I have pulled the file and conducted a thorough review of the claim.

As part of the claim process, we utilize independent adjusters to inspect vehicles and provide...

a full report on the findings. These adjusters are unaware of the warranty coverage, and do not have any information on the warranty. They are sent out to provide an unbiased report on the current damage.
The adjuster that inspected this vehicle advised there was overspray on this vehicle. Overspray can result from many different sources (i.e. paint, chemical). Unfortunately overspray is not covered under the terms of this warranty. The product applied to this vehicle for protection can prevent damage occurring as a result of fading, chalking, loos of gloss, acid rain, tree sap, and bird droppings.
Since the damage on this vehicle is not resulting from one of the above named sources, we were not able to offer compensation on this claim. The products applied to this vehicle for protection cannot prevent overspray damage from occurring.
We appreciate the opportunity to explain this claim denial and feel we have remained in compliance with the warranty terms.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Claims Manager
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/09/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have a copy of the inspector's report and there is no statement of overspray. The inspector even stated to me that he thought it was paint and I told him to look closer as it seems that what ever it is has taken the paint off. He said you are right and then said he didn't know what it was. I am attaching a copy of the report where it is stated that the damage was paint and it was stated at the time of inspection that he didn't think it was paint.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2014/09/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have yet to receive any type of information from the company. I am still waiting and still requesting a refund or for my vehicle to be repaired as per the terms in the agreement. This response was over 2 weeks ago.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2014/10/01) */
We feel that the decision we made regarding the claim denial under warranty PEID XXXXXXX was in full compliance under the terms of the warranty. Since we operate professionally and courteously we would like to offer a gesture of good will in an effort to provide the customer with a satisfactory resolution.
At this time we are offering $1135.80 towards the repair of the damage located on the vehicle. This amount is based on the estimate from [redacted] Body less the sales tax. Please note we are tax exempt in the state of New York.
Please advise the date of the appointment and we will send the funds directly to the repair facility of the customer's choice.
In addition, please note no supplements will be honored for this repair. In the event there are additional costs associated with this repair, they would be the responsibility of the customer.
We appreciate this opportunity to assist the customer.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Claims Manager

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/09/16) */
We are in receipt of the complaint information regarding the interior claim denial under the Protector Warranty.
Certainly we would like to further investigate the damage to ensure the customer receives the benefit of the product...

that was applied to the interior of his vehicle. We have arranged to send a mobile technician out the customer's home at his convenience to further inspect the damage on the dashboard of this vehicle.
Once in receipt of the report from the technician, we will further review the claim.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Claims Manager
Consumer Response /* (3000, 12, 2014/10/06) */
The business is stating its a manufactures defect and is not covering it. I contacted Nissan corporation and they are saying its not a manufactures defect and based on this being a 3rd car bought threw them and always taking my cars for repairs and maintenance they are willing to cover and pay for the dashboard but not the labor. At this time I don't think I should pay for neither. I submitted this over to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Confirmation number (ODI Number) is: XXXXXXXX as well. If anything since I have the coverage through ecpinc, they should cover the labor cost at-least since Nissan corporation is advising its not a manufactures defect
Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2014/10/10) */
We are in receipt of the complaint information provided regarding this Protector Claim denial.
Upon further review of the claim information, we remain confident that our denial decision was accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty. The Protector product applied to the interior of this vehicle cannot prevent the type of damage the customer is experiencing from occurring.
At this time we would like to request a labor only estimate to repair the dashboard of this vehicle. We will review the claim with the Consumer Review Panel to see if there is a change in the denial decision upon receipt of this estimate.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Claims Supervisor
Consumer Response /* (4200, 16, 2014/10/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The protector product is for the exterior of the car not the interior. I've had holes repaired in my leather through your company with no issues as well getting acid spots to the exterior of my car fixed by it being painted. This dashboard is affected by the Sun uv rays causing this issue. I talked to the service manager Rich at Courtesy Nissan of Tampa and he advised me that they cannot provide a paper estimate only a request order at the time the car will be fixed. I am still waiting for the dashboard to arrive but the cost for the dashboard itself was quoted at $1600 which Nissan corporation is paying for. The labor is going to be $297.00 plus tax. The reason it is so low is because Nissan Corp is also having the labor rate reduced to nissans cost and not the customers regular labor rates. The number to Nissan Service is XXX-XXX-XXXX and you can request to talk to the service manager Rich or the service agent Karim which can provide the details of the labor cost if you need to confirm it since they cannot produce an estimate. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Consumer Response /* (-5, 18, 2014/11/05) */
I sent the request order showing the labor charges from Nissan that was requested to [redacted]@ecpinc.net on 11.5.14. 2:16pm est. pdf file was attached to email.
Business Response /* (4000, 19, 2014/11/06) */
We are in receipt of the estimate provided by the Protector customer. As a gesture of good will, we would like to authorize the repair labor cost of the dashboard in the amount of $297.00 based on the estimate provided.
Please advise the date of the repair and we will forward payment direct to the repair facility.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Claims Supervisor
Consumer Response /* (4200, 21, 2014/11/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am forever grateful for your company taken care of the labor cost and really do appreciate it. Nissan would not supply an estimate so I sent you the request order. The only way to get the request order was to pay for the dashboard labor on 10.30.14 and have Nissan install the dashboard. Attached is the receipt of the paid labor by my son Kevin [redacted] and I will also forward a copy to email address [redacted]@ecpinc.net. Is it possible to send a check directly to me instead of the facility. [redacted]
Business Response /* (4000, 23, 2014/11/20) */
Per the customers request we have issued payment directly to him.
We are happy the customer is satisfied with this resolution.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Claims Manager
Business Response /* (2000, 25, 2014/11/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I am extremely happy that this was taken care of... The safety is now restored, no more glare. Driving for myself and my passengers ** back to normal.. thank you so much

I expected a hassle getting warranty coverage when the Diamond Coat sealant separated in a few places...to my absolute surprise, the company was very responsive, polite and quick, helped me through the process to get it repaired, and my car finish looks showroom new. I would absolutely recommend ECP.

"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We are in receipt of the complaint regarding the interior claim for Mr. [redacted].
 
Our products were designed to protect the interior surfaces of treated vehicles against permanent stains resulting from a minor cuts, or mishaps occurring by children or pets.  They were not intended to protect against catastrophic events such as the one described by the claimant.  However, in the interest of consumer satisfaction, and as an upstanding company that stands behind its products, ECP is choosing to authorize the covered repairs to this vehicle. 
 
The customer has been sent correspondence regarding this authorization via email. 
 
We appreciate the opportunity to review this claim. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time.
 
Thank you,
 
[redacted]
Claims Manager

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/15) */
August 15, 2014
RE: Case # XXXXXXXX
We are in receipt of the complaint that your office received regarding the claim denial under Auto Armor warranty ASRSP XXXXXX.
I have pulled the customer's file and conducted a thorough...

review.
There are several things that we request from a customer when they file a claim with our office so that we may fully review the nature of the claim and make a decision on the authorization or denial of the claim. Two of these required items are color photos of the damage, and an itemized estimate to repair the damage. In addition, as part of our claim process we utilize independent third party appraisal companies to evaluate damages. This provides claimants with an unbiased independent avenue so that their claim can be evaluated further without influence. The appraisers are not provided with any warranty information and are unaware of the coverage that the customer is eligible for under the Auto Armor Warranty. In order to give the claim a more complete evaluation, we sent an appraiser from United Automotive Appraisals (UAA) out to look at the claimant's vehicle and provide a full inspection report for our review.
Upon receipt of the inspection report from UAA, we were able to determine the rust damage on the vehicle was an old rust condition. The adjuster indicated the rust damage to be "long term perforated rust". In addition, upon further review of the photos and estimate the customer submitted we were able further substantiate that the rust damage on the vehicle was old rust damage. The photos submitted illustrate the fact that the damage was present beyond the 60 day time period required to submit a claim. In addition, the damage on the vehicle was so severe that based on the estimate the customer submitted from The Body Shop, the panels now require replacement.
Below please find the Vehicle Owner Requirements included in the Auto Armor warranty:
VEHICLE OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. Vehicle owner should maintain the vehicle by regular washing and prompt use of touch-up paint on nicks and scratches. Every six months after the original product application, the owner should follow all instructions specified on the Auto Armor Environmental Maintenance Kit and use all products it contains in the manner prescribed.
2. CUSTOMER'S DUTY: Failure of the customer to regularly inspect the vehicle in order to be able to file a claim within sixty (60) days following the occurrence of covered damage will relieve manufacturer of all legal responsibilities under this warranty.
Please note item (2) whereby it states that all damage must be reported within 60 days of occurrence. Since this damage was not reported within the specified timeline, we the manufacturer under this warranty are relieved of any legal responsibility to remit payment or authorize repairs for this claim.
In closing, since the damage on the vehicle was not reported within the 60 day time period required under the warrant and we cannot offer any compensation in this claim. We regret that the customer is unhappy with our decision but we remain confident that it is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty.
We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the claim denial. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time.
Respectfully Yours,
[redacted]
Claims Manager
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/08/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I turned in a claim the very day That I saw the rust.
So I am well inside the 60 days. And they say it is old rust. Explain to me how I was I supposed to know that my truck was rusting on the inside of the rocker panels till a hole showed up. I paid them good money to rust proof my truck so this would not happen. Their product is either no good or it wasn't properly installed. Either way it is their responsibility to make it right, I have a 10 yr warranty. There is no way I could have known it was rusting on the inside. My truck has always been kept washed. I waxed it 2 times a yr spring and fall every year since I bought it. There was no rock chips anywhere on my truck that was down to bare Metal that would have rusted.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/08/28) */
I am in receipt of the customer's response regarding the claim denial under his corrosion warranty.
Based on the photos and inspection report we have from the independent adjuster, the rust damage on this vehicle has been present well beyond the sixty (60) day reporting period. The rust on this vehicle has gone beyond repair and now requires replacement. This type of rust damage does not occur within a sixty (60) day time period.
The insurers that back our warranties insist on full compliance of the terms.
Unfortunately we cannot assist at with the authorization of this claim.
Sincerely,
Claims Manager
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2014/09/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Their reason for denying my claim is so wrong. They are saying that I had rust for an extended time and knew that I had and saw rust. That is a lie. Their still is no visible rust except the hole that rusted from the inside out. And they say they had a 3rd party take a bunch of pictures, which they did, That further proves my case. The pictures show a truck That is in way better than average condition for the age. My truck is always in the garage. Has never been left dirty.gets waxed twice a year. And the pictures prove it. The truck never showed any signs of rust till like july, a rust bubble appeared so I scrapped it and their was a hole under it. And upon further inspection using a snake camera inside rocker panels shows they are rusting from the inside out. I turned in a claim the very same day I saw the rust. That's well within the company 60 day policy. So I ask the question again that the company has not given me a answer. How do u know if truck was rusting and u say I waited to long to turn it in when it was rusting from the inside out. That is why I paid to have it rust proofed. Because u can't see inside rocker panels and behind fenders. So once again I say either your product is no good or it was a poor install. Bottom line I paid so my truck would not rust and now it is. I have a written warranty that says u will take care of the customer and u won't. That's wrong and u know it. My lawyer has advised me to file a small claims through court's.

I purchased my coverage with a new car in 2012. I had to use in recently in 2016. I expected to have issues since it had been so long since purchase, but there were no issues. These folks were great. The claim was processed. they tried the upholstery cleaning step and it did not work. The could not clean red cough syrup off the seats. They graciously replaced the upholstered seats. During this entire process, my customer service person, Alyce, was wonderful.

Check fields!

Write a review of E C P, Inc.

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

E C P, Inc. Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Auto Service - Specialty Parts, Auto Services, Auto Service - Rust proofing Shops, Auto Warranty Service, Auto Warranty Processing Service, Auto Customizing

Address: Oak Brook, Illinois, United States, 60522-1098

Phone:

Show more...

Add contact information for E C P, Inc.

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