Genuine Warranty Solutions Incorporated

Dear Ms [redacted] : We have received your e-mail letter dated February 19, 2014, along with the electronic complaint filed with your office by Ms [redacted] concerning coverage provided by the now-expired vehicle service contract (VSC) she purchased on her used [redacted] HSE As an indication of our company's policy of processing claims according to the terms and conditions of her contract, we believe it is important to note that Ms [redacted] has received excellent value from her VSC between the purchase date of January 13, 2011, at 84,miles, and the expiration date of January 12, 2014, at 121,milesDuring that period, we processed eight claims and reimbursed her or her repair facility over $4,for covered repairs Ms [redacted] 's claim, which was reported to us on December 17, 2013, was denied because it was unreasonable to believe that any vehicle would have eight different engine fluid leak complaints in 36,miles It is more reasonable to believe that there were improper repairs made or faulty parts used Additionally, some of the same parts were replaced twice during the VSC coverage and a third time prior to the VSC's purchaseThe same failures prior to the VSC's purchase may mean that some of the covered claims may have been denied because they reasonably were pre-existing before the VSC's purchase If you have a question please telephone me at ###-###-#### Sincerely, [redacted] General Manager

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Unfortunately I did not receive the e-mail from Revdex.com on 2/27/14, and only learned of the status of my complaint yesterday after I sent an inquiry After reading the response from Genuine Warranty Solutions, I can tell you that nearly everything stated in the letter is false As only one example, stating that some of the same parts were replaced multiple times during our 3-year contract is absolutely not true In addition, the assertion that the claim in question was not covered because it was not reasonable to believe the automobile could have eight different engine fluid leak complaints in 36,miles is also not true.
On the final claim in question, when our repair center could not get a response from Genuine Waranty for nearly a month, and after I personally called and was hung up on by the Claims Manager, I sent an e-mail asking for clarification Initially the response was that the “Claim is denied for tsb, bulletins and notices regarding excessive failures of this kind with seals and gaskets are the reason for denial of these issues.” When I replied that the repair center confirmed that there are no bulletins or notices regarding the issue, the reply from Genuine Warranty was “The issues are know to LR dealers and per the contract we will not be covering those additional issuesYou received a great value for your service contract and thanks for the business.” When I replied to ask for exactly which clause of the contract outlined the reason for the denial, I received no response After sending out two separate inspectors to inspect the vehicle, and the inspectors confirming that the vehicle had been maintained appropriately, Genuine Warranty simply decided they were not going to pay for the claim This claim is absolutely covered under the warranty
From the very first claim we submitted shortly after purchasing this extended warranty, Genuine Warranty has done everything they can to deny claims and to make the entire process as difficult as possible for the repair center and us They have been unavailable by phone, delayed in sending inspectors to check the vehicle, and generally caused us to both personally pay for repairs that should have been covered, and required us to pay for rental cars for many, many days due to their consistent delay in promptly handling claims We purchased an extended warranty for our Range Rover because Range Rovers require a significant amount of maintenance and repair The fact that we utilized the warranty is not an excuse for the insurance company to deny claims that are covered
I am not surprised that Genuine Warranty has provided blatantly information regarding the type and number of claims they processed during our 3-year warranty They have been dishonest from the very beginning I see no point in pursuing this claim with them any further My only desire at this point is to ensure the information regarding resolution of my claim is posted accurately on your web site I hope that reading about my experience with Genuine Warranty will educate and inform other possible customers of theirs so that they do not make the same mistake we did in purchasing a policy from them I see that my claim is now posted as “Resolved” on your web site, and that is not an accurate representation of the situation If you can please change the status to “Unresolved”, and post this reply as appropriate, I would appreciate it Hopefully this will help warn others
Best regards,
*** ***

Please see attached

Dear Ms. [redacted]:
 
We have received your e-mail letter dated February 19, 2014, along with the electronic complaint filed with your office by Ms. [redacted] concerning coverage provided by the now-expired vehicle service...

contract (VSC) she purchased on her used 2004 [redacted] HSE.
 
As an indication of our company's policy of processing claims according to the terms and conditions of her contract, we believe it is important to note that Ms. [redacted] has received excellent value from her VSC between the purchase date of January 13, 2011, at 84,822 miles, and the expiration date of January 12, 2014, at 121,586 miles. During that
period, we processed eight claims and reimbursed her or her repair facility over $4,000.00 for covered repairs.
 
Ms. [redacted]'s claim, which was reported to us on December 17, 2013, was denied because it was unreasonable to believe that any vehicle would have eight different engine fluid leak complaints in 36,764 miles.   It is more reasonable to believe that there were improper repairs made or faulty parts used.   Additionally, some of the same parts were
replaced twice during the VSC coverage and a third time prior to the VSC's purchase. The same failures prior to the VSC's purchase may mean that some of the covered claims may have been denied because they reasonably were pre-existing before the VSC's purchase.
 
If you have a question please telephone me at ###-###-####
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]
General Manager