Fox Concrete

August 19, 2015 VIA:    ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE [redacted] RE:     COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2005 [redacted] VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 19, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced...

consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on June 12, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on July 1, 2015 (See attached Service Contract). On July 27, 2015, at 4:11 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing cylinder head and air pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On July 27, 2015, at 4:43 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was smoke from the tailpipe and leaks from the valve cover gasket. CARS again went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure and 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 Condition of his Service Contract. Fourteen (14) days later, on August 10, 2015, at 11:23 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was smoking. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle had not been touched by the repair facility because the customer advised that he would not pay for the tear-down charges. CARS explained that we needed to know what had failed on the customer's vehicle in order to move forward with the claim. The repair facility's contact person translated for the mechanic and advised that the mechanic was not sure if the valve seals and/or valve guides had failed. CARS again explained that we needed to confirm the cause of failure to determine coverage under the customer's Service Contract. The repair facility advised that they would have the customer call CARS. On August 10, 2015, at 3:29 p.m., a claims manager returned a telephone call to the customer's mother who advised CARS that she wants to make sure CARS will pay for the repair of her son's vehicle prior to authorizing tear-down. CARS advised her that we cannot guarantee anything other than CARS will proceed with the claim according to the Terms and Conditions of her son's Service Contract. CARS further advised that we cannot move forward with the claim until it is verified that a covered component under her son’s Service Contract has failed. On August 12, 2015, at 2:53 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cylinder heads were off and the valve stem seals were the only component needed to repair the customer's vehicle. On August 13, 2015, at 4:06 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, specifically, valve seals are non-covered components. After a management review of the July 27, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle as follows: We could supply the head gasket set for $194.50, the upper intake set for $314.21 and the head bolts for $60.54. ProDemand labor guide stated that decking and the repair should take 36.0 hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered is $2,160.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim after the deductible was applied is $2,629.25, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $2,060.00 towards decking and labor or pay $2,629.25 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility telephone must telephone CARS with the customer's decision prior to any repairs being done to the customer's vehicle. By his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(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 teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2 (k): "CARS will arrange for payment 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 $100.00 of the authorized amount for the repair of his vehicle. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. 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 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. If the Service Contract holder has any questions, CARS requests that the customer calls CARS directly. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,Jason [redacted]General Counsel  [redacted]

Hi Revdex.com,I have had this issue resolved. Cars protection plus mailed me my refund. I am all set and would like to thank you all for the assistance. [redacted]

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

November 28, 2016VIA: EMAIL/WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2006 AUDI A4 VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am in receipt of your letter dated November 17, 2016, enclosing the above-...

referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 2, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 2, 2015 (See attached Service Contract).On September 13, 2016 at 10:52 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On September 13, 2016 at 11:51 a.m., CARS again reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility then advised CARS that the customer left his vehicle at the repair facility on September 10, 2016 because the vehicle was not shifting and the check engine light was displayed. The repair facility advised that the diagnostic trouble code p0722 for the input speed sensor was displayed.CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization 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. The repair facility advised CARS that they would telephone the customer regarding further diagnostic/tear-down.On October 17, 2016 at 10:26 a.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.On October 31, 2016 at 11:08 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the failure of the valve body was caused by the conductor plate which is part of the Transmission Control Module (TCM). The repair facility further advised that the TCM can be purchased separately from the valve body. The repair facility also advised that they pulled and the pan and did not find any mechanical failures that caused the failures to the valve body.On November 3, 2016 at 10:54 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, we would not able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the conductor plate which is part of the TCM, a non-covered component, failed causing damage to the valve body.On November 7, 2016 at 11:21 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the repair facility advised him that CARS gave authorization for the repair of his vehicle and then advised the repair facility that the repair was not covered. CARS advised the customer that we never authorized the claim made on behalf of his vehicle. We advised that on October 31, 2016, we told the repair facility that the conductor plate which is part of the TCM, a non-covered component, failed causing damage to the valve body. Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, we would not able to assist with the repair. CARS then referred the customer to the repair facility.On November 7, 2016 at 11:32 a.m., CARS again reviewed the transmission claim with the customer. The customer advised that the failed component should be covered under his Service Contract since it was not excluded on the Service Contract. CARS again reviewed his coverage with the customer. The customer asked to be transferred to a claims manager.On November 7, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., a claims manager returned the customer's telephone call. The customer questioned why the TCM was not covered since it is a lubricated part. The claims manager advised the customer that he TCM is not an internally lubricated part and is bolted to the bottom of the transmission and not located in the transmission case itself. The customer advised that the repair facility told him it was an internally lubricated part. The customer then advised that he did not feel well and could not deal with this at the time. The claims manager advised the customer to telephone him when the customer was up to it and provided his contact information.On November 7, 2016 at 1:39 p.m., the customer telephoned the claims manager and advised that his mechanic told him the TCM was an internally lubricated part and he wanted an inspector to look at his vehicle. CARS advised that the repair facility stated on a recorded line that the failure was due to the conductor plate, which is part of the TCM and a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract. Our claims manager advised the customer that there was no reason to send out an independent inspector since CARS was familiar with where the TCM was located on vehicle. The customer advised that he was going to contact his attorney and ended the telephone call.On November 10, 2016 at 2:43 p.m., the customer telephoned a claims manager to check on the status of his claim. The claims manager advised that as per the telephone conversation they had on November 7, 2016, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle. The customer advised that he would turn the claim over his attorney and the Revdex.com.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 customer's Service Contract under: "COVERED COMPONENTS (Transmission): Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing; torques converter; bands; pump; pump housing; carrier assembly; planetary gears; chain; drum;..." Here, the repair facility that the chose to repair his vehicle advised CARS that conductor plate, which is part of the TCM, had failed. The repair facility further advised that the TCM can be purchased separately from the valve body. The TCM is external and is not an internally lubricated part of the valve body assembly; therefore, this repair is not covered under the customer's Value Plus Service Contract or any other service contract offered by CARS.In addition, it is stated in the customer's 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 conductor plate, which is part of the TCM, is not listed for coverage on the customer's Service Contract. The TCM can be purchased separately from the valve body. Please see the attached descriptions of the TCM and valve body showing that they can be purchased separately.For the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the September 13, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractThe customer has Service Contract coverage through October 6, 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.I hope this letter serves to explain the reasoning CARS used to properly deny the customer's claim. 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.|ason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachments

[redacted] Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania[redacted] RE:          COMPLAINT ID #[redacted] 2010 DODGE JOURNEYVIN (Last 8): [redacted]OUR FILE NO.: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 15, 2016...

and January 20, 2016 enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaints and respond as follows: On January 21, 2016 CARS telephoned the customer to explain the processing and the amount of her refund. CARS now considers this matter resolved.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason P. M[redacted]General Counsel

VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE[redacted]Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]2004 TOYOTA TUNDRA VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated, September 21, 2016, enclosing the...

above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On March 30, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on April 25, 2016 (the attached Service Contract).On September 8, 2016 at 1:34 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing steer knuckle, lower ball joint and rear line issues. The repair facility advised CARS that the issues with the vehicle may be the result of an accident. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.On September 8, 2016 at 2:04 p.m., the repair facility advised a CARS' claims adjustor that the vehicle was driven to the repair for an alignment; however, the customer's vehicle had been in an accident that bent parts on the right and left side of the vehicle. CARS advised that the customer’s Service Contract did not cover any damage resulting from an accident. The claim was then closed.On September 8, 2016 at 2:10 p.m., CARS reviewed the mechanical claim and the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract with the customer. The customer advised that he wished to cancel his Service Contract and was then transferred to the refund department.On September 8, 2016 at 2:15 p.m., CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract.On September 15, 2016 at 3:33 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he no longer had his vehicle and would like a refund of his Service Contract. CARS again advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract. The customer was then transferred to the office manager.On September 19, 2016 at 2:34 p.m., CARS’ office manager advised the customer that he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract since his vehicle was not declared a total loss or repossessed.By the customer’s signature on his Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1 (1); ‘‘“COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage from flood, fire and/or accident, regardless of the cause.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle advised CARS on September 21, 2016 that the customer's vehicle had been in an accident which caused the bending of parts on the right and left side of his vehicle.Furthermore, the customer states in his complaint that he is requesting a refund of $1,495.00; however, this is not the amount that CARS received for the cost of the customer's Service Contract. Dealers have the right to mark up the cost of service contracts. The selling dealer that sold the customer the Service Contract did mark up and make a profit on the cost of the Service Contract.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 5(b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated."CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in the state where the customer's vehicle was purchased to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of his Service Contract. Therefore, pursuant to his Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund.The Service Contract also states at 4(a): "SERVICE CONTRACT PROVISIONS: The ServiceContract is transferable, by the original purchaser of the contract to the subsequent owner of the vehicle provided CARS receives the transfer fee of $99.00 prior to the sale of the vehicle. CARS will not transfer the contract to another vehicle or to a business. The transferred Service Contract will remain in effect for the remainder of the original period.” Here, the customer’s Service Contract is not eligible for a transfer since the customer has traded the above-referenced vehicle.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely, Jason [redacted] General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

RE: COMPLAINT ID #[redacted]
2009 FORD EXPEDITION VIN (Last 8): [redacted] OUR FILE NO.: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]I am in receipt of your letter dated September 9, 2015, enclosing the above referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: CARS contacted the customer on September 15, 2015 to request...

that he provide an invoice from the repair facility.On September 16, 2015, after the customer provided the invoice for the repair of his vehicle to CARS and after a management review of the customer's consumer complaint, CARS advised the customer that CARS would pay $190.88 towards the repair of his vehicle. The customer has agreed to this amount. Enclosed please find a copy of check no. [redacted] in the amount of $190.88 made payable to the customer.CARS considers this matter to be resolved.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%, If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason [redacted] General Counsel

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]

February 12, 2018VIA:  Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA  15220 RE:                 2002 CHRYSLER PT CRUISER                                    VIN (Last 8):  [redacted]                                    OUR FILE NO.:  [redacted]                                    Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.:  [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: I am in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2018, enclosing the customer’s additional concerns regarding the above-referenced vehicle.  I would like to respond as follows:   After a management review of the customer’s concerns, in a goodwill gesture, CARS has issued the attached check which will be mailed directly to the customer. Ms. [redacted], if you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely,Jason ** M[redacted]                                  �...⇄ General Counsel [redacted]
[redacted]