Fox Concrete

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

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I reviewed that response from CARS, however, in the response, it states that yes they contacted me and explained to me that AUDI was charging $115.00 /hr for labor and they pd $60/hr, and suggested that I take my car somewhere else, in the response it states that I was given a decision to either take the allowance that they would give me or approve the repairs, CARS states they told the repair faculty to explain to me and get back to them with my decision, Well the repair shop NEVER explained that it me, my question is, Why didn't my warranty company call me and explain to me what my options were, just as you did when my car was at the audi shop. My main reason for filing this complaint is that CARS in violation the Consumer Protection Law by making me pay for tear down and diagnostics for this warranty. Also, I called and spoke with my adjuster ( Tanner) he stated that I my transmission was rebuilt, The repair shop says it was replaced. They also give a complete different issue as to what was actually wrong with my transmission,  My point is that had the warranty company called and let me know what my options were, I could have saved myself a lot of money by possibly going to a place that would work with the money given to me from the warranty company.
Regards,
[redacted]

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

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

January 31, 2018VIA:  Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA  15220 RE:      2010 BUICK...

ENCLAVE                                    VIN (Last 8):  [redacted]                                    OUR FILE NO.:  [redacted]                                    Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.:  [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 25, 2018, enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the above-referenced vehicle.  I would like to respond as follows:  Our records indicate that on April 11, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle.  On that same day, the customer also applied for an Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles).  CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Ultimate Value Service Contract on April 12, 2016.  (See attached Service Contract). Since the inception of the customer’s Service Contract, three (3) claims have been properly opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.  CARS was willing to authorize the amount of $356.35 for one of the claims and CARS assisted and paid two other claims for the repair to the customer’s vehicle in the total amount of $1,039.11 as follows: First Claim:  On October 26, 2016, a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing fuel injector issues.  CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.   On October 26, 2016 at 2:57 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows:   We could supply the fuel injector for $77.79 and gasket for $18.56. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.6 hours to complete and pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract CARS would pay 1.0 hour of diagnostics, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $100.00 per hour for labor.  Therefore, total labor was $360.00.  The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible.  We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $356.35.  CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim:  CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $356.35 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would assist with the labor in the amount of $260.00.  The repair facility advised that that they would get back to us regarding the customer’s decision. On November 11, 2016 at 9:51 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed the vehicle without having any repairs completed on his vehicle.  The claim was then closed.  Second Claim:  On April 3, 2017, a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing ignition coil, O2 sensor and high pressure fuel pump issues.  CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.   On April 4, 2017 at 9:28 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the check engine light was displayed in the customer’s vehicle and the vehicle was running rough. The repair facility advised CARS that the high pressure pump and the #2 ignition coil had failed.  CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.   On April 4, 2017 at 10:15 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows:   We could supply the ignition coil for $27.79, the high pressure fuel pump for $192.79 and the O2 sensor for $51.79. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.0 hours to complete and the repair facility’s labor rate for the repair was $85.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $255.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible.  We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $427.37.  CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim:  CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $427.33 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would assist with the labor in the amount of $155.00.  The repair facility advised that that they would get back to us regarding the customer’s decision. On April 6, 2017 at 1:25 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the allowance to use towards the repair of his vehicle.   On April 6, 2017, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS paid the repair facility $427.33 to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle via credit card.  The claim was then closed. Third Claim:  On June 30, 2017, a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing thermostat, injector and front strut issues.  CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.   On June 30, 2017 at 4:15 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was driven to the repair facility due to misfires, fuel injector, front strut and thermostat issues.  The repair facility further advised that there was a hole in the air conditioner condenser.  CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.   On June 30, 2017 at 4:15 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows:   We could supply the injectors for $106.33, thermostat for $13.94, and the air conditioner condenser for $68.00.  CARS could assist with the Freon in the amount of $36.00 and coolant in the amount of $44.97. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 5.9 hours to complete and the repair facility’s labor rate for the repair was $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $442.50. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible.  We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $611.74.  CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim:  CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $611.74 to be used towards the specifically-authorized repair. If the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied parts, CARS would assist with the labor in the amount of $611.74, Freon in the amount of $36.00 and coolant in the amount of $44.97.  The repair facility advised that that they would get back to us regarding the customer’s decision. On June 30, 2017 at 4:27 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the allowance to use towards the repair of his vehicle and that CARS was to pay the allowance for the repair of the vehicle directly to the customer.  On June 30, 2017 at 4:29 p.m., CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility for the repair of the customer’s vehicle. On July 14, 2017 at 3:27 p.m., pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS paid the customer $611.74 to assist with the repair of his vehicle via check.  The claim was then closed. On January 25, 2018 at 8:54 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the throttle body, canister purge, solenoid were repaired on January 8, 2018 and the O2 sensor, bank 2 sensor 1 and sensor 2 were repaired on January 22, 2018 at a repair facility that had previously repaired the customer’s vehicle.  CARS advised the customer that we were unable to assist with the repair since a mechanical claim was never opened on behalf of his vehicle.  CARS advised the customer that during previous repairs, mechanical claims had been properly opened and our claim procedures had been properly followed pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract; however, our claim procedures where not followed for the recent repairs to his vehicle. CARS then attempted to transfer the customer to a supervisor; however, the telephone call ended before the transfer could occur. On January 25, 2018 at 9:32 a.m., CARS customer service manager reviewed our claim procedures with the customer.  CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, we were unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle since a mechanical claim on behalf of his vehicle was not opened by a repair facility and authorized by CARS.  The customer asked for an exception to his Service Contract and requested to speak to the customer service manager’s supervisor. On January 25, 2018 at 9:42 a.m., CARS office manager advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, we were unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle since a mechanical claim on behalf of his vehicle was not opened by a repair facility and authorized by CARS.  The customer asked for an exception to his Service Contract.  Our office manager advised that CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.   By the customer’s signature on his Ultimate Values Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.  The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at: 1(c): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS.”  The customer’s Service Contract further states at 3 (a), (b), (e) and (g):  “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES:  Your vehicle must be at a repair facility, within the continental United States, open to the public during normal 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 necessary.  The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete…”, “The repair facility must call CARS at 888-335-6838 to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun.”, “The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun.” … “If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by CARS, an authorization number will be issued for the repair.”   By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the Service Contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed.  The repair facility never provided CARS with its findings or an estimate prior to the repair of his vehicle. Here, CARS’ claim procedures were not followed; therefore, CARS was unable to pay for any repairs performed by the repair facility.   Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair.  The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage.  Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.   As evidenced in the above paragraphs, when our claim procedures were followed properly, CARS processed, authorized and paid the mechanical claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. To reiterate, the repair facility did not open a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle or provide CARS with an estimate for the repair of the customer’s vehicle; therefore, CARS is unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.   CARS is not responsible for any monies for the repair of the customer’s vehicle because the claim procedures were not followed.   The customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through April 12, 2020.  If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract.  If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.   When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim.  We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%.  If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.  Sincerely,Jason ** M[redacted]                                �...⇄ General Counsel JPM/jmmAttachment

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

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

August 18, 2016 VIA:    SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE:      Complaint No. [redacted] 2002 CADILLAC ESCALADE VIN (Last 8)[redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted] I am...

in receipt of your letter dated August 16, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 17, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 17, 2016. First Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 9:57 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner line issues and needed to be recharged. We advised that the air conditioner line is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed. Second Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor, drier, and condenser issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 27, 2016 at 4:12 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $292.00 and the condenser for $70.99. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $48.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.8 hours to complete, and repair facility's hourly rate was $65.00. Therefore, total labor was $247.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $556.99, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $147.00 towards labor, or pay $556.99 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer’s decision. On July 28, 2016 at 10:38 a.m., CARS reviewed the options we could offer for the repair of his vehicle with the customer. The customer advised us that he may take his vehicle to another repair facility for the repairs. CARS then advised the customer that if he did remove his vehicle from the repair facility a new claim would have to be opened on behalf of his vehicle. On July 28, 2016 at 4:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed his vehicle without any repairs being performed on his vehicle. The claim was then closed. Third Claim: On August 9, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a second repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On August 10, 2016 at 1:17 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $253.51 and the drier for $35.86. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $45.57. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.2 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $154.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $388.94, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $54.00 towards labor, or pay $388.94 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer's decision. On August 10, 2016 at 2:08 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle. On that same day, on August 10, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On August 10, 2016, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, upon receipt of a proper invoice, CARS paid the repair facility $388.94 towards the repair of the air conditioner via credit card. On August 15, 2016 at 2:04 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they performed the authorized repairs; however, the customer’s vehicle had no air conditioning in the rear of his vehicle. The repair facility further advised that the rear air expansion valve had failed. CARS advised that the rear expansion valve is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. On August 16, 2016 at 9:54 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like to be paid the rest of the thirty (30) day quote that CARS provided during the processing of the July 27, 2016 claim to another repair facility. The customer stated that we originally quoted him $600.00; however, we only paid $388.94. CARS advised that we paid the amount we authorized to the current repair facility for the parts and labor (see attached invoice). CARS advised that the failure of the expansion valve and any damage caused by that failure were not covered under his Service Contract. We further advised that we do not give thirty (30) day quotes. On August 16, 2016 at 11:24 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the current and previous claims with the customer. By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to take the cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, on August 15, 2016 the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear expansion valve issues. These components are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS cannot assist with the repair/replacement of the expansion valve. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(a): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: ...The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." Here, the July 27, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle by the first repair facility was closed on July 28, 2016 when the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility. During a telephone call with the customer on July 28, 2016, CARS advised the customer that if he removed his vehicle from the repair facility, a new claim would need to be opened on behalf of his vehicle whenever he took his vehicle to a repair facility for repairs. CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract and what is necessary for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, CARS authorized the claim based on the information provided by the repair facility and paid the claim as per the authorized parts listed on the invoice. During the processing of the August 9, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS authorized an a/c compressor for $253.51, a drier for $35.86, and fluids for $45.57 and 2.2 hours for labor, less the deductible, based on the information provided by the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle for a total of $388.94. CARS cannot apply monies from an authorization for a closed claim towards the open claim. Therefore, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist any further with the August 9, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer. CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. The customer has Service Contract coverage through February 18, 2020. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel

November 11, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: Complaint No. 11837852008 BMW 7501 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated November 8, 2016, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On June, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 23, 2015 (see attached Service Contract).Three (3) claims have been opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle since the inception of the Service Contract.First Claim: On January 7, 2016, at 11:03 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing timing cover gasket, vacuum pump, oil press switch oil leak issues. The repair facility further advised that there were also issues with the catalytic converter. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On January 7, 2016, at 2:29 p.m., CARS advised that oil leaks and catalytic converters were not covered under the customer's Service Contract and the customer was responsible for all repairs to the vehicle. The claim was then closed.Second Claim: On August 31, 2016 at 2:49 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing trunk ram motor and catalytic converter issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On August 31, 2016 at 4:06 p.m., in a voice message, CARS advised that the truck ram motor and catalytic converter were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS could not offer any assistance with the claim.On August 31, 2016 at 2:56 p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS to advise that the check engine light was displayed with codes for the catalytic converters and the trunk needed a hydro unit. The repair facility advised that the trunk lock actuator had not failed. CARS then advised that the truck ram motor and catalytic converter were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS could not offer any assistance with the claim. The claim was then closed.Prior to the third claim referenced below, on September 19, 2016 11:11 a.m., the customer's daughter, who is not the Service Contract holder, advised CARS that she wanted to cancel the customer's Service Contract. CARS then reviewed Texas provisions for cancellation with her. CARS advised the customer's daughter that any refund would be a prorated refund since twenty days had passed from the purchase date. The customer's daughter advised that CARS was using “loopholes” to get out of paying claims and she should be given a full refund on behalf of her father's Service Contract. CARS explained that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract and Texas provisions for cancellation, the customer was entitled to a prorated refund of the amount the customer paid for the Service Contract. The customer's daughter then asked to speak to a manager.On September 21, 2016 and September 23, 2016 CARS office manager attempted to return telephone calls to the customer; however, the customer was not able to take our telephone calls.Third Claim: On October 27, 2016 at 10:30 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that thecustomer's vehicle was experiencing thrust rod bushing issues. CARS advised that thrust rod bushings were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS could not offer any assistance with the claim. The claim was then closed.On November 7, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., either the customer or the customer's daughter advised CARS she wanted to cancel the Service Contract. CARS then advised that we would send a Service Contract Cancellation Form to the customer. The customer/customer's daughter advised that she wanted immediate managerial assistance with the cancellation of her Service Contract The customer advised that our office manager did not cancel the Service Contract when she requested the cancellation because the customer's daughter is not the contract holder. The customer/customer's daughter advised CARS that we should have called her back. As stated above, CARS attempted to call the customer's daughter back in late September.On November 7, 2016 at 9:57 a.m., CARS advised the customer's daughter that the prorated refund would be sent by CARS to the selling dealer and he would issue the refund monies to the customer.On November 7, 2016 at 10:24 a.m., CARS' office manager called the customer. The customer/customer's daughter advised the office manager that she no longer needed her assistance since she already received the cancellation form from CARS and she had no further questions.By the customer's signature on the Ultimate Value Service Contract the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITEDTO ABOVE COMPONENTS." Also, as stated under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure. Here the catalytic converter, thrust rod bushing and the truck ram motor are not listed as covered components under the customer's Service Contract. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to pay for these repairs.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.In the consumer complaint the customer states that the customer would like a refund of the Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b): “CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested." and "After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated." Here, CARS received the written cancellation request from the customer on November 10, 2016. Since the customer's Service Contract was approved on July 23, 2015, the cancellation request was past the first twenty (20) days.The Service Contract also states: ADDITIONAL STATE DISCLOSURES: THIS IS NOT ANINSURANCE POLICY TEXAS: If a Service contract holder cancels a Service Contract on or after the 31st day of purchase CARS: (a) Shall refund to the Service Contract holder the prorated purchase price of the contract reflecting the remaining term of the contract, based on mileage, time, or another reasonably applicable measure of the remaining term that must be disclosed in the contract, decreased by the amount of any claims paid under the Service Contract, (b) May impose a reasonable cancellation fee not to exceed $50.00..." Here, since CARS has received the customer's request to cancel the service contract in writing, the customer is entitled to a prorated refund under Texas Statutes. The proration of the customer's refund should be calculated on the date CARS received the written request (i.e. November 10, 2016); however, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is processing a prorated refund back-dating to September 19, 2016, which is the original date the customer verbally requested cancellation of the Service Contract. The prorated refund of CARS' portion of the refund will be mailed to the selling dealer. Both CARS' portion of the refund and the selling dealer's portion of the refund will be provided to the customer by the selling dealer.Please note that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to selling dealers. The selling dealer had a right to mark up the cost of the Service Contract for a profit. Therefore, what the customer paid for the Service Contract is not what CARS received for the cost of the Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

December 21, 2017   VIA:    SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA  15220   RE:                COMPLAINT ID NO. ...

[redacted]          2007 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500                                     VIN (Last 8):  [redacted]                                     OUR FILE NO.:  [redacted]                                         ...⇄ Dear Ms. [redacted]:   I am in receipt of your letter dated December 14, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint.  I would like to respond in the following manner:  On November 1, 2017, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Independence Service Contract (Month to Month). In addition, the selling dealership provided payment via check for the first month of the Service Contract and the customer executed under the Owner’s Acceptance to Terms on the Service Contract Application/Authorization Form. The customer’s Independence Service Contract was approved by CARS on November 22, 2017, once CARS received confirmation that the selling dealer’s payment was successful.                As you can see on the attached Independence Payment Authorization Form, the customer did not provide any payment information to CARS in order for us to process the new Independence Service Contract (Month to Month) that would go into effect on December 22, 2017.  Therefore, on November 22, 2017, CARS mailed the attached letter to the customer requesting payment information by December 15, 2017, or the Service Contract coverage could not be renewed for the next month.  CARS never received the payment information from the customer; therefore, his Service Contract expires on December 22, 2017.   On December 6, 2017 at 3:07 p.m., a mechanical claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.   On December 6, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was a rattle in the engine and the oil pressure was 20 pounds. The repair facility advised CARS that there was noise from both sides of the engines that sounded like the lifters.  CARS advised the repair facility that we would review the claim and get back to them.     On December 7, 2017 at 4:40 p.m., the customer advised CARS that his vehicle would run for a couple of minutes and then begin to make a loud lifter tick sound.  The customer advised that the noise began about three (3) weeks after purchase.  The customer advised that there were no issues with his vehicle during a test drive.  The customer further advised that the power steering had been empty; but he refilled the power steering and had not noticed any leaks. The customer advised CARS that he took his vehicle to the repair facility on December 4, 2017.   On December 8, 2017 at 3:21 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.   On December 12, 2017 at 10:23 a.m., the repair facility returned our telephone call.  CARS advised that we needed a photo of the odometer in the customer’s vehicle.    On December 12, 2017 at 3:44 p.m., CARS left a voice message with the repair facility confirming that we received the photo of the odometer reading.  CARS also requested that the repair facility telephone us so that we could move forward with the claim.   On December 13, 2017 at 11:23 a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.  CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle.  CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.  CARS advised the repair facility to get back to us with their findings.   On December 13, 2017 at 1:24 p.m., the customer requested a crate (new or used) engine for his vehicle.  CARS advised that we could not authorize any repair without tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle.  The customer advised CARS that he did not feel that tear-down to his vehicle was necessary.  CARS then reviewed the customer’s Service Contract coverage in regards to tear-down of his vehicle.  The customer then requested to speak to a manager and ended the telephone call.   By the customer’s signature on his Independence Service Contract (Month to Month) he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.  The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at 3(c):  “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for THESE charges.”  We include tear-down to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle.  This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time.  We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis of the customer’s vehicle; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.    Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair.  The customer’s Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage.  Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, difference in labor rate, labor time, shop supplies, programming, non-covered components, maintenance items and taxes.    At this time CARS has neither approved nor denied the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.  CARS is waiting for the repair facility to provide us with the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle in order for us to move forward with the December 6, 2017 engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.   The customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through December 22, 2017.  To reiterate, CARS did not receive payment information from the customer for his Independence Service Contract (Month to Month) by December 15, 2017; therefore his Service Contract coverage ends on December 22, 2017.  However, since the December 6, 2017 mechanical claim was opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle prior to the expiration of his Service Contract, CARS will process the mechanical claim until the claim has been adjudicated or until the vehicle has been removed from the repair facility.   When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim.  We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%.  If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.   Sincerely, Jason ** M[redacted]                                         ...⇄ General Counsel   JPM/jmm Attachments

January 13, 2017 200833 CADILLAC ESCALADE VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated January 12, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced customer's additional concerns regarding his vehicle.At this time the customer should have the repair facility telephone CARS to open a claim on behalf of the customer's vehicle.If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

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

above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on May 30, 2017. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 31, 2017. (See attached “Service Contract")On June 1, 2017 at 1:55 p.m., CARS reviewed her Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures with the customer. The customer advised CARS that her vehicle was not experiencing any mechanical issues.On June 6, 2017, the customer advised CARS that she would like to upgrade her Power Train Service Contract to a Value Limited Service Contract. The customer then provided CARS with her billing information.On June 8, 2017, CARS processed the customer's upgrade to a Value Limited Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles) with billing information provided by the customer.On June 8, 2017 at 10:24 a.m., a repair facility and the customer advised CARS that the check engine light was displayed in the customer's vehicle. CARS then went over the customer's Service Contract coverage, our claim procedures and labor rate.On June 9, 2017 at 1:12 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing thermostat issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 9, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that engine thermostat code p0128 for insufficient cooling temperature was displayed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 9, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility that we could supply the ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $60.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim was $72.16. CARS further explained that the deductible ($100.00] was greater than the value of the claim ($72.16); therefore, CARS was unable to offer a cash allowance for the thermostat claim. CARS advised the repair facility that we could not assist with the entire claim; however, we could ship the thermostat if the customer was agreeable. We advised the repair facility to contact us if the customer wanted CARS to ship the thermostat. The claim was then closed.By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 2 (k): “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." The customer is responsible for a $100.00 deductible for each claim authorized by CARS for the repair of her vehicle. Here, the total value of the June 9, 2017 thermostat claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle was $72.16, which is less than the $100.00 deductible. Since the total value of the claim was less than the $100.00 deductible, CARS advised the repair facility that we could assist with the claim by supplying the thermostat needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility to contact us if the customer was agreeable to having the thermostat shipped. At this time the repair facility has not contacted us regarding a CARS' supplied thermostat for the repair of the customer's vehicle.The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(e): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select used, rebuilt, or aftermarketcomponents when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we used the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. Here, CARS is able to supply a thermostat for the repair of the customer's for $12.18. CARS has not heard from the repair facility if the customer would like the thermostat shipped to the repair facility.The customer's Service Contract states: “COVERED COMPONENTS LABOR: The authorized time for a covered repair will be based on the ProDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility’s rate exceed this amount, You are responsible for the difference." Here, during the processing of the thermostat claim, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle advised CARS that the labor rate for the repair of the customer's vehicle was $95.00 per hour. ProDemand labor guide allows 1.0 hours for the replacement of the thermostat; therefore, the total value of the labor portion of the thermostat claim was $60.00. Here, the customer would be responsible for any amount over $60.00 per hour for the labor costs and any labor time over 1.0 hours associated with the repair of her vehicle.Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, in order to calculate the value of the claim, CARS used the amount ($12.18) that we would pay for a suppled thermostat and the ProDemand labor time for the replacement of a thermostat (1.0 hours at $60.00 per hour) to calculate the amount the total value of the claim. Here, the total value of the claim was $72.18 which is less than the $100.00 deductible. Therefore, CARS could not assist with a cash allowance for the claim; however, we could supply the thermostat, if the customer was agreeable.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide “all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.The customer has Service Contract coverage through November 30, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason *. M[redacted]General CounselAttachment

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

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

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

There was a considerable mark up from the car lot that I bought the warranty through. I paid $899 and received a check from the car protection warranty for $249. I believe I should also receive the remaining balance from [redacted], their mark up for the warranty. The contract Car Protection has that states the price of $249 is a forged document with my name.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

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

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

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]

April 9, 2018 VIA:  Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA  15220   RE:      2005 HONDA ODYSSEY...

                                    VIN (Last 8):  [redacted]                                     OUR FILE NO.:  [redacted]                                     Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.:  [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   CARS is in receipt of your letter dated April 5, 2018, enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the above-referenced vehicle.  CARS would like to respond as follows:    According to CARS’ records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 27, 2018. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved on March 2, 2018.  (See attached “Service Contract”).   On March 6, 2018 at 3:40 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then went over CARS claim procedures the repair facility.   On March 6, 2018 at 3:51 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the transmission in the customer’s vehicle was shuttering, sticking in gear and the fluids were full and dark.  CARS advised the repair facility that CARS needed to speak to the customer before CARS could move forward with the transmission claim.   On March 7, 2018 at 9:04 a.m., the customer advised CARS that she purchased her vehicle on February 27, 2018.  The customer advised that her vehicle had no issues during a test drive; however, she did notice that it may need shocks.  The customer then advised that her husband drove her vehicle the day after purchase on the highway and her vehicle experienced stuttering when traveling at 35-40 miles per hour.  The customer further advised that that when her vehicle was traveling at 35-40 miles per hour it would stick in gear and there was clunking noise.  CARS advised the customer that CARS would review the transmission claim and get back to her.   On March 7, 2018 at 9:17 a.m., CARS’ management reviewed the March 6, 2018 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.  CARS found that during the March 7, 2018 telephone call, the customer advised CARS that the issues with her vehicle began on February 28, 2018, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 2, 2018; therefore, pursuant to the Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.   On March 7, 2018 at 9:31 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that CARS could not assist with the March 6, 2018 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle because the transmission issues were present on February 28, 2018 which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 2, 2018.   On March 7, 2018 at 10:22 a.m., CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the March 6, 2018 transmission claim made on behalf of her vehicle because the customer advised CARS that the transmission issues were present on February 28, 2018, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 2, 2018.  CARS then referred the customer to the selling dealer.   By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract application, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions.  Directly above the customer’s signature, it states: “I have read, understand, and agree to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions as stated on this entire Service Contract application. This Service Contract application does NOT go into effect until: (1) this completed application is received by CARS, (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which MAY BE DIFFERENT than My date of vehicle purchase.” Additionally, the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b) states: “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED:  Component failures occurring before the date CARS receives and approves this Service Contract application are not covered.”   Here, as stated previously, on March 7, 2018, the customer advised CARS that her vehicle began to experience transmission issues on February 28, 2018, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 2, 2018.   Based on the information provided by the customer her vehicle began to experience issues prior to CARS acceptance of her Service Contract on March 2, 2018.  CARS was not aware of any mechanical issues with the customer’s vehicle when CARS approved the customer’s Service Contract application. CARS does not accept service contract applications if CARS is made aware of mechanical failures prior to CARS receiving and approving the service contract application with payment.  If CARS had been made aware that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues prior to CARS’ acceptance of her Service Contract with payment on March 2, 2018, CARS would have rejected and sent back the customer’s Service Contract application with payment to the selling dealership.    When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract.  As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with any failures that were present prior to CARS’ acceptance of this Service Contract on March 2, 2018.   CARS has responded directly to customer on March 16, 2018, March 23, 2018, and April 4, 2018.   CARS provided the customer with the March 7, 2018 telephone call advising CARS that her vehicle failed on February 28, 2018, with CARS’ March 23, 2018 correspondence to the customer.  The customer was advised that the telephone call was being recorded.   Please see attached responses to the customer.   For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.  However, the customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through June 2, 2018. Should the customer’s vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract.  If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.   When a claim is presented, CARS fully investigates the circumstances surrounding the claim.  CARS honors every contract sold and stands behind CARS’ products 100%.  If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.   Sincerely, Jason ** M[redacted] General Counsel   JPM/jmm Attachments                 Tell us why here...

March 28, 2018VIA:  Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA  15220 RE:      2005 NISSAN...

MAXIMA                                    VIN (Last 8):  [redacted]                                    OUR FILE NO.:  [redacted]                                    Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.:  [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 26, 2018, enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the above-referenced vehicle.  I would like to respond as follows:  CARS’ records indicate that on February 22, 2018, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle.  On that same day, the customer also applied for a Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles).  CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Power Train Service Contract on March 1, 2018.  (See attached Service Contract). On March 14, 2018 at 11:00 p.m., the customer advised CARS that the above-referenced vehicle had been experiencing issues since she left the dealer’s lot.  The customer advised CARS that her vehicle experienced issues going from reverse into drive. CARS reviewed CARS’ claims procedures with her.  CARS then reviewed the $100.00 deductible and the additional costs that she would be responsible for paying. On March 26, 2018 at 9:33 a.m., a repair facility opened a mechanical claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.  CARS then reviewed CARS’ claim procedures with the repair facility. On March 26, 2018 at 10:33 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle only had first and second gears and the fluid was burnt.  The repair facility advised CARS that they did attempt to flush out the transmission; however, the customer’s vehicle continued to experience difficulties.  CARS advised the repair facility that CARS could not assist with the transmission claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle because the transmission issues where present on February 22, 2018, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 1, 2018. On March 26, 2018 at 10:45 a.m., CARS advised the customer that on March 14, 2018, she advised CARS that the issues with her vehicle began when she drove her vehicle off the dealer’s lot on February 22, 2018.  CARS advised the customer that CARS could not assist with the transmission issues because the transmission issues were present on February 22, 2018 which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 1, 2018. By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract application, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions.  Directly above the customer’s signature, it states:  “I have read, understand, and agree to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions as stated on this entire Service Contract application. This Service Contract application does NOT go into effect until: (1) this completed application is received by CARS, (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which MAY BE DIFFERENT than My date of vehicle purchase.” Additionally, the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b) states: “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED:  Component failures occurring before the date CARS receives and approves this Service Contract application are not covered.”  Here, as stated previously, on March 14, 2018, the customer advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle began to experience transmission issues on February 22, 2018, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 1, 2018.  Based on the information provided by the customer, the customer’s vehicle began to experience issues prior to CARS acceptance of her Service Contract on March 1, 2018.  CARS was not aware of any mechanical issues with the customer’s vehicle when CARS approved her Service Contract application. CARS does not accept service contract applications if CARS is made aware of mechanical failures prior to CARS receiving and approving the service contract application with payment.  If CARS had been made aware that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues prior to CARS’ acceptance of her Service Contract with payment on March 1, 2018, CARS would have rejected and sent back the customer’s Service Contract application with payment to the selling dealership.   When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract.  As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with any failures that were present prior to CARS’ acceptance of this Service Contract on March 1, 2018. For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.  However, the customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through June 1, 2018. Should the customer’s vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract.  If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service contract. When a claim is presented, CARS fully investigates the circumstances surrounding the claim.  CARS honors every contract sold and stands behind CARS’ products 100%.  If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely,Jason ** M[redacted]General Counsel JPM/jmm

July 5, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]VIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated June 28, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced consumer...

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

December 18, 2017 VIA:  Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA  15220            RE:        2005 FORD F150...

                                    VIN (Last 8):  [redacted]                                     OUR FILE NO.:  C-6227                                     Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.:  [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted]:   I am in receipt of your letter dated December 15, 2017, enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint the above-referenced vehicle.  I would like to respond as follows:  Our records indicate that on August 23, 2017, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same day, the customer also applied for a Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles).  CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Value Limited Service Contract on August 30, 2017.  (See attached Service Contract).   On November 7, 2017 at 4:29 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was experiencing transmission issues.  CARS then reviewed his Service Contract coverage, our claim procedures and towing benefits with him.    On November 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., the customer advised CARS that his vehicle was towed to a repair facility due to the transmission cooler lines failing.  The customer advised that he has to pay for the cooler lines to be replaced in order to show that there is an internal issue with his vehicle.  CARS advised that if there was an internal issue with the customer’s vehicle, CARS would require tear-down to verify the cause of failure and the extent of damage to his vehicle.  CARS further advised that the transmission cooler lines were non-covered components under his Service Contract; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle.   On November 13, 2017 at 2:30 p.m., the customer advised CARS that a code for a cylinder misfire was displayed.  CARS then reviewed the customer’s Service Contract coverage, tear-down and labor rate with the customer.  The customer then requested to be transferred to our cancellations department.    On November 13, 2017 at 2:39 p.m., CARS advised the customer that pursuant to his Service Contract, after twenty (20) days there was no credit for early termination of the Service Contract unless his vehicle was declared a total loss or repossessed.  The customer was upset that we were not assisting with the transmission cooler lines.  CARS again reviewed the customer’s Service Contract coverage with him.                  On November 27, 2017 at 11:29 a.m., the customer advised CARS that his vehicle was at a new repair facility and they are pulling transmission codes.  CARS reviewed the customer’s Service Contract coverage and our claims procedures with him.   On November 27, 2017 at 1:29 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues.  CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.   On November 27, 2017 at 1:29 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the fluid in the customer’s vehicle was full and discolored with no visible metal.  The repair facility advised that during a test drive of the vehicle the transmission did slip.    CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle.  CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.    On November 28, 2017 at 3:46 p.m., the customer advised CARS that another repair facility had done an improper repair to the transmission lines which caused the transmission lines to fail.  The customer further advised that the transmission lines were repaired by the other repair facility; however, the transmission still did not work properly.   On November 29, 2017 at 8:45 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the repair facility had not yet pulled the transmission to determine the cause of failure. CARS advised the repair facility that the customer’s vehicle had to be torn down to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle before we could move forward with the November 27, 2017 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.   On November 29, 2017 at 1:12 p.m., CARS advised the customer that we could not move forward with the November 27, 2017 mechanical claim until the repair facility provided us the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle.   On November 30, 2017 at 3:05 p.m., CARS again advised the customer that we could not move forward with the November 27, 2017 mechanical claim until the repair facility provided us the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle.   On November 30, 2017 at 4:41 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he wanted a remanufactured transmission to replace the failed transmission in his vehicle.   On December 4, 2017 at 1:36 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle had been removed from the repair facility.  CARS then closed the claim.   On December 15, 2017 at 12:02 p.m., CARS reviewed the customer’s Service Contract coverage and the November 27, 2017 mechanical claim with him.  CARS advised the customer that he was not eligible under his Service Contract for a refund of his Service Contract.   By the customer’s signature on his Value Limited Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.  The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at 3(c):  “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage and You are responsible for all charges.”  We include tear-down to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine what has caused the failure of a covered component and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.  This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time.  We were not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis of the customer’s vehicle; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.  Here, the repair facility never provided CARS with the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle so that we could move forward with November 27, 2017 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.    The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE:  CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.”  When CARS selects a replacement part we used the cost of the part to be calculated towards the total amount of the claim.  The part could either be shipped to the repair facility or included in the amount of the claim allowance as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are to be tested by our suppliers and known to be in good working condition. Here, CARS was never provided with the cause of failure or the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle; therefore, we could not determine what parts were required for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.    Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair.  The customer’s Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage.  Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, difference in labor rate, labor time, shop supplies, programming, non-covered components, maintenance items and taxes.    For all the reasons stated above, CARS was unable to move forward with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility never provided CARS with the cause of failure or the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.  Therefore, CARS was unable to determine if the failures to the customer’s vehicle were covered under the customer’s Service Contract.  CARS neither approved nor denied the November 27, 2017 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.    If the customer if willing to give his permission to a repair facility to perform tear-down of his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle, the customer may have a repair facility open a new mechanical claim on behalf of his vehicle. CARS will then process any mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.   In his consumer complaint the customer states that he would like a refund of his Service Contract. The customer’s Service Contract states at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b):   “CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested.” and “After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated.” Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract he is not entitled to a refund.    The customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through August 30, 2018.  If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract.  If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.    When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim.  We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%.  If you have any further question, please contact my office.                                           ...⇄                                         ...⇄ ** M[redacted]                                         ...⇄  General Counsel   JPM/jmm Attachment Tell us why here...