Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Unfortunately, the response from this business is not accurate Parts of the response are true while others are not I have a work order from the dealership that states "flat tire due to an apparent pot hole." It continues to go on an state the evidence I have uploaded that work order to prove that was the cause The tech called back after examining the tire to share it was an apparent pot hole Still no approval The work order says it and still no approval In addition, when I called from my office phone the call would go through When I called from my cell phone the call would not I tried seven times on my cell phone I contacted Lasco Ford and they agreed with me that this tire should have been covered under the guidelines in which they sold the policy Again, the tire only had 4,miles on it brand new Without a doubt this company should be investigated by the bureau I will be canceling this policy and seeking legal council for this reimbursement of my tire It is not about the money anymore It is the principle that this company is not legit and absent of standard business ethics Regards, [redacted]
Ms [redacted] purchased an Advanced Windshield Protection Windshield Repair or Replacement Limited Warranty on 02/13/from Westside Lexus for her Lexus RX This warranty is designed to cover chips or cracks to the windshield caused by propelled small rocks or stones while the vehicle is being driven on a highway, street, or paved road It also covers stress cracks caused by bumps in the highways, streets, or roads.Ms [redacted] contacted IAS on 2/3/to initiate a claim for damages to her windshield When she was asked when she first noticed the damage to the windshield, she replied "about November I got behind a truck that was spilling stuff on the road So, coming back after Thanksgiving So, whatever week that was." When asked if the damage was caused by a rock, she stated "Uh huh Well, I don't know if it was a rock Something came off the truck."After obtaining some additional information about the damages, the customer was advised that we would be unable to move forward with her claim because she is responsible for reporting the claim within days of the damages occurring Therefore, her claim was being denied.Ms [redacted] then stated "Well, it could have been days I'll just call back and change my mind and tell you it was a month ago." Our representative advised her that the call was already recorded so that would not work She advised the representative that we would get a bad review from her on-line She began using profanity and the representative referred her to the terms and conditions of the Contract she purchased.The warranty Ms [redacted] purchased states:"To make a claim for windshield repair or replacement, which is the only area covered under this Limited Warranty, contact the Administrator at ###-###-#### within days of the appearance of any damage."Ms [redacted] reported the damage as occurring on her way back from Thanksgiving but did not initiate her claim with IAS until 2/3/-over two months later Her claim was denied because she did not report the damages timely per the terms and conditions of her warranty.Her signature on the warranty states "I have read the above Limited warranty and the terms and conditions, and I choose to purchase the Windshield Repair or Limited Warranty."We regret Ms [redacted] does not agree with our claim decision however, we feel we handled the claim based on the terms and conditions of her Contract
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: That tire was NOT replaced recently, it was on the vehicle when I purchased it and alleged guarantee The tire that was replaced was the right front It was replaced by *** [redacted] , owner of [redacted] , owner of the dealership The tire was taken off to get pictures of the complete intrusion of the metal It was NOT afterhours and the store was not closed I did have another claim that was rejected and when that one was explained to me I understood the protocol for filing a claim, did not complain, so this time I followed that protocol The statements concerning the recently replaced tire and afterhours work are absolutely false Regards, [redacted] ***
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The company is attempting to deceive on this claim, the number of correspondences and contacts to the company is valid I have added a FEW pictures of the electronic correspondence and phone calls always accompanied the electronic communicationThe company representative/supervisor--email: [redacted] @iasdirect.com Admitted the following:Athe company had issues receiving emails and faxes AND although I sent them, requested a verified receipt on over 30% of them she claimed that they were not in the system and that their company's email system was not seeing all of the emails and they were aware of this I questioned how weeks and weeks after submitting pictures was I not notified that something was not received Additionally, she requested that I email her directly---which I did-- then I had to fax the info in They PREFER email and KNOW that the email system is defective per their supervisor this means that they are attempting to divert claims and delay payments BThe messages requesting a supervisor were never submitted by the front line personnel She told me this after I complained that I had made at least 5-requests for supervisorThe company has poor management practices all around and I believe attempts to defraud clients Updates to the policy---submitted by [redacted] cars AND myself changing the name on the policy--- have NEVER been made; although the car company and myself sent to the proper location MY name should be on the policy as I am the sole owner The company's staff is rude, does not know their own policies and constantly puts blame on the client vsincompetent staff In closing, it would have been much easier to get this paltry $claim paid in NOVEMBER when I initially submitted all documents The company chose either by company divergent policy or by utter incompetence to ignore this claim and thus breech the contractual relationship The claim was in early NOVEMBER it is ONLY after I filed a claim with the Revdex.com that 3-days later they miraculously come up an approved claim...not in any of the months or weeks before---Why is that? This company attempted to avoid payment of this small claim; I wonder how many others they are duping and how many do not have tenacity to pursue this company's unethical practicesI have spent HOURS on this and have substantial documentation; I will not be satisfied by any means until a portion of my time is compensated---just like they compensate the staff that they use to subvert payment of claims [redacted] -***, [redacted] Regards, [redacted] -***
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The company is LYING; I have numerous calls and CONFIRMATION emails that they were received--- I tagged the emails and NONE were sent back Secondly---I have NEVER directly filed a claim with IAS ----- I will alert [redacted] Cars that they are complaining that the protection that my dealer sold me---with IAS and thus I used when taking the car into the shop---is a problem The dealership could not do the leather repair and thus I became involved "Customer responsibility" is an insult as I have contacted repeatedly this company--your SUPERVISOR--- [redacted] @iasdirect.com ( [redacted] @iasdirect.com) (documented in the complaint) that you had a problem with email system and that it was NOT returning the emails nor notifying the sender/user of a problem She stated that this was a KNOWN problem Additionally, check the phone calls and the numerous requests for a supervisor, call back, etcI NEVER received ANY attnof any merit until I filed this claim I also have the fax confirmation from [redacted] s that they did send the in name change as did I....so that again in a falsehood.This company is OBVIOUSLY working hard to discredit my complaint which is valid and substantiated by documentation; if only they worked hard when unsuspecting, vulnerable customers contacted them for the "insurance" that they provide we would not be here This issue is NOT resolved at this point Regards, [redacted] -***, **
Mr*** purchased a R.O.A.DInTire Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles on 07/26/from Lasco Ford. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard. Road hazard "means debris on the road surface such as
nails, glass, potholes, rocks, tree limbs or any other object or condition not normally found in the roadway." The warranty is not insurance as the customer refers to in his complaint
Mr*** initiated a claim with IAS on 10/20/for tire damages occurring on 10/17/14. Mr*** states the repair technician stated the damage was clearly a result of hitting a pothole. However, when we spoke to the repair technician on 10/20/he could not provide us with a cause of damage for this tire. We advised we would need to speak to the customer regarding the cause of damage then
Mr*** contacted us again on 10/20/14. When initially asked what happened to the tire, Mr*** stated he had no idea. Later in the conversation he was asked again what caused the damages to the right front tire. He advised our representative that it was his wife’s vehicle and that she was driving in a parking lot after getting groceries and had a flat tire. The customer was asked if he saw any physical damage or objects in the tire and he stated no. He was also asked if there had been anything in the roadway that shouldn’t have been there to which he also replied no. We asked Mr*** if he preferred we spoke to his wife since she was driving at the time the damages occurred and he declined the same stating it was his car and his insurance coverage
During the telephone conversation, Mr*** was advised that we were unable to proceed with his claim without a cause of damage as not all damages are covered under the warranty. He was asked again if he knew what caused the damage to the tire and he again indicated he had no idea
In order for there to be coverage under the warranty, there must be a known road hazard as all damages are not covered by this warranty
We regret Mr*** is not satisfied with our claim decision however, his claim remains denied for an unknown cause of damage
In his complaint, Mr*** accuses IAS of blocking his telephone number, preventing IAS from receiving his call. IAS has not blocked his telephone number. It appears either the cell phone tower was overloaded or all telephone circuits were busy
If Mr*** wishes to cancel his warranty, he must contact the dealership to complete the cancellation request. The refund will be calculated based on the terms and conditions stated within his warranty:
"YOU may cancel this CONTRACT at any time by surrendering it to the DEALER at the ISSUING DEALER’S address listed in the Proof of Registration section of this CONTRACT, along with a written request for cancellation. If YOU request a cancellation request within sixty (60) days of the purchase of this CONTRACT, the CONTRACT shall be void and a full refund of the CONTRACT price will be made by the DEALER provided that no claim has been made against the CONTRACT during this period. If a claim has been made against the CONTRACT or if the CONTRACT has been in your possession for more than sixty (60) days, the DEALER will make a pro-rata refund less a thirty-five dollar ($35) cancellation fee, less claims paid. This refund will be based on the elapsed time from the CONTRACT SALE DATE, and will only be provided if YOU are the original purchaser of this CONTRACT."
Mr*** purchased a R.O.A.DInTire Vehicle Tire and Wheel Guarantee (Contract) on 02/25/from Mercedes-Benz of *** *** for his Mercedes-Benz C300. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover tire and wheel damages resulting from a road hazardOn 02/02/at approximately
8:am central time, Mr*** contacted IAS to initiate a claim for tire damages occurring on 02/01/15. He indicated his tire went flat and he changed his tire in the snow storm. He stated he had not had time to inspect the damages yetDuring that phone call, Mr*** was advised he had two options of what type of repair facilities he could take the vehicle toThe claim payment procedures were explained to him as well. Mr*** was advised by our representative that the repair technician must contact IAS before the repairs were completed or his claim would be denied. He acknowledged that he understood the proceduresOn 02/03/at approximately 8;am central time, a claim was initiated online for this same damage. At approximately 9:am central time, the customer contacted IAS. The claim procedures were again explained to him as well as the payment process, and he was advised that if any work was done before the claim was authorized by IAS the claim would be denied. Again, he indicated he understood the claim proceduresThe reason we require pre-authorization is so the repair technician can provide independent information regarding the cause of damages, type of damages the tire or wheel sustained, specific information regarding the tread depth at the time of loss, costs, etc. There must be a minimum tread depth for a claim to be covered and there are some types of losses which are excluded under the warranty. It is during the telephone call with the technician that it is determined if the claim meets the warranty guidelines or notOn 02/03/at approximately 8:am central time, IAS received an invoice for a flat tire repair completed by Belle Tire on 02/02/at 11:am. Since this claim had not been authorized by IAS prior to repairs being completed, Mr***'s claim was denied. The claim procedures were explained twice to Mr*** for this claim as well as any repairs completed without IAS’ authorization would be denied. Both times he indicated he understood the claim process. The Contract states in at least six places that the claim must be pre-authorized by IAS before repairs. We had no choice but to deny his claim since Mr*** chose to have repairs completed without following the claim procedures. This was not Mr***’s first claim for tire and/or wheel damages with IAS. He should be familiar with the terms and conditions of his Contract. We regret he is not satisfied with our claim decision however, his claim remains denied as no pre-authorization was received for repairs which is a condition of this Contract
Yes, if Mr*** attempted to contact IAS after business hours we would not have been available. However, he had the opportunity to contact IAS during the next two days while the tire was being ordered and while repairs were being made to initiate his claim and receive pre-authorization. He failed to do so therefore, his claim was denied. It is unclear why Mr*** contacted Porsche of North America for assistance when his warranty covers hour emergency road service if you call the number provided on the warranty
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: The company is LYING; I have numerous calls and CONFIRMATION emails that they were received--- I tagged the emails and NONE were sent back. Secondly---I have NEVER directly filed a claim with IAS ----- I will alert Euromotor Cars that they are complaining that the protection that my dealer sold me---with IAS and thus I used when taking the car into the shop---is a problem. The dealership could not do the leather repair and thus I became involved. "Customer responsibility" is an insult as I have contacted repeatedly this company--your SUPERVISOR--- ***@iasdirect.com (***@iasdirect.com) (documented in the complaint) that you had a problem with email system and that it was NOT returning the emails nor notifying the sender/user of a problem. She stated that this was a KNOWN problem. Additionally, check the phone calls and the numerous requests for a supervisor, call back, etcI NEVER received ANY attnof any merit until I filed this claim. I also have the fax confirmation from *** that they did send the in name change as did I....so that again in a falsehood.This company is OBVIOUSLY working hard to discredit my complaint which is valid and substantiated by documentation; if only they worked hard when unsuspecting, vulnerable customers contacted them for the "insurance" that they provide we would not be here. This issue is NOT resolved at this point
Regards,
*** ***, **
The repair facility stated that the work was completed after hours, not IAS. However, the invoice clearly shows the work was completed during business hours and was completed without receiving authorization from IAS for repairs. The claim remains denied as the work was completed without receiving authorization from IAS beforehand
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The IAS rep verbally approved the tire repair to myself and the technician and IAS has a recording of this in thier records
Everything was done in accordance with the contract, pre-authorization was sought and given verbally to which both myself, the technician, and his manager heard via speakerphone
IAS failed to uphold thier end of the contract for a tire warranty for road hazard damage that was sustained and should have been coveredFurthermore, coverage was extended for a tire that under thier warranty terms should have never been covered but how would an individual know that I tire had a patch unless you require the dealer to take all of the tires off and have an IAS agent present to inspect them
Consumers should be aware of IAS's tactics and I feel the need to contact the dealership I bought the vehicle from and every dealership that I have contacts with to share the experience the situation I had with IAS to protect other consumers
The only way I will be satisfied is if IAS agrees to pay the claim on the tire that they should have covered in the first place
Regards,
*** ***
It is unclear what attachments Ms***-*** has attached to her complaint however it appears to be a list of e-mails she attempted to send to IAS on her claim Based on this list of e-mail subject titles it is clear as to why her e-mails were not received by IAS The only information that can be in the subject line of an e-mail, unless sent directly to an individual employee, is the six digit claim number The procedures for e-mailing are explained to every customer Each one of the e-mails in this list contains something in addition to the six digit claim number therefore, would not have been received by IAS.During the handling of this claim, she was advised that if she was having trouble e-mailing information to IAS then she should probably fax the information instead.Ultimately, it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that they provide the required information for their claim and that the information is received by IAS.Ms***-*** should be familiar with the claim procedures as this was her sixth claim with IAS Again, we regret Ms***-*** feels there were delays in the handling of her claim however, until the required information is received we are unable to authorize a claim.IAS has no record of Euro Motorcars requesting Ms***-***'s name be added to this contract or that she be the only listed owner on this contract Since they remitted the contract to IAS in the name of Colin Carlton ***, the dealership would need to forward a letter to IAS along with a copy of the finance agreement and/or Buyer's Order showing Ms***-*** was in fact an owner of this vehicle in order for her name to be added to the contract.As indicated in our last response, the Protection Plan does not compensate the customer for their time in filing a claim
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:1. The company is attempting to deceive on this claim, the number of correspondences and contacts to the company is valid. I have added a FEW pictures of the electronic correspondence and phone calls always accompanied the electronic communicationThe company representative/supervisor--email: ***@iasdirect.com Admitted the following:Athe company had issues receiving emails and faxes AND although I sent them, requested a verified receipt on over 30% of them she claimed that they were not in the system and that their company's email system was not seeing all of the emails and they were aware of this. I questioned how weeks and weeks after submitting pictures was I not notified that something was not received. Additionally, she requested that I email her directly---which I did-- then I had to fax the info in. They PREFER email and KNOW that the email system is defective per their supervisor this means that they are attempting to divert claims and delay payments. BThe messages requesting a supervisor were never submitted by the front line personnel. She told me this after I complained that I had made at least 5-requests for supervisorThe company has poor management practices all around and I believe attempts to defraud clients. Updates to the policy---submitted by EuroMotor cars AND myself changing the name on the policy--- have NEVER been made; although the car company and myself sent to the proper location. MY name should be on the policy as I am the sole owner. The company's staff is rude, does not know their own policies and constantly puts blame on the client vsincompetent staff. In closing, it would have been much easier to get this paltry $claim paid in NOVEMBER when I initially submitted all documents. The company chose either by company divergent policy or by utter incompetence to ignore this claim and thus breech the contractual relationship. The claim was in early NOVEMBER it is ONLY after I filed a claim with the Revdex.com that 3-days later they miraculously come up an approved claim...not in any of the months or weeks before---Why is that? This company attempted to avoid payment of this small claim; I wonder how many others they are duping and how many do not have tenacity to pursue this company's unethical practices. I have spent HOURS on this and have substantial documentation; I will not be satisfied by any means until a portion of my time is compensated---just like they compensate the staff that they use to subvert payment of claims. *** ***, **
Regards,
*** ***
As indicated in our prior response, Mr*** did not purchase an all encompassing insurance policy for his tires and wheels. He purchased a tire and wheel guarantee designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard only. There are many perils which cause damage to tires and wheels which are not covered under this Contract. Since Mr*** is unable to advise specifically what caused the damage to his tire, there is no coverage for the damage as we are unable to determine if the damages are covered under this warranty without knowing what occurred
?
When IAS spoke to the repair technician at Maxey Ford he was unable to provide us with his professional opinion as to what caused the damage to this tire. He stated “he wouldn’t know, maybe a pothole or something like that or a curb.” Curb damage is not a covered peril under this warranty
?
Since statements tend to change once claims are denied, we must go with the initial responses received when handling a claim. The fact that the invoice from the repair facility now states “apparent pothole impact” damage does not change our claim decision as when we originally spoke to the technician he could not provide us with the cause of damage
It is unfortunate Mr*** assumes we have the time or desire to block calls coming from his cell phone. IAS has not blocked his calls. If he is unable to get through to IAS there must be some other reason as to why, and he should contact IAS using his business phone if he is successful getting through on that line
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:IAS is blatantly misstating what occurred during this claim Belle Tire contacted IAS and received pre-approval IAS is correct in stating this is not the first time I have used my warranty I understand how IAS is constantly trying to avoid honoring the terms of the contact it entered into, as I have had to repeatedly fight to have claims honored Notably, I spoke with *** at IAS on Monday, May 19, about this issue He refused to give me his last name He then said that my claim of appeal would be reviewed on Friday (5/22/15) and that a decision would be transmitted to me next week Instead, I was stunned to find an email the next day from IAS denying my appeal How could it have been denied if the meeting on Friday had not been held? *** then went on to indicate that IAS always presumes that claims are denied unless it is convinced that claim should be honored.Once again, IAS continues to be intentionally deceitful about its business practices, as it has throughout the three years I have had the warranty I continue to request a full refund.
Regards,
*** ***
Mr*** purchased a Tire & Wheel Protect Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles from ***’s Hyundai for his Chevrolet Crew Cab (used) on July 15, 2014. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard
On 08/25/14, Mr
*** contacted IAS to initiate a claim for damages to the left rear and right front tires of his vehicle. The claim procedures were explained to him and he was advised to have the repair technician contact us prior to the repairs taking place as all claims require pre-authorization for repairs
On 09/23/14, we received a call from a technician at Discount Tire. The customer was also present at the repair facility. The technician informed us that the right front tire had a faulty patch repair. Our representative explained to the technician that since that repair was not handled through IAS that we would be unable to handle any further repairs to that tire. Mr*** then got on the phone and stated he did not have that repair done and that he must have bought the vehicle after that tire had been repaired. Our representative explained that that damage would be considered pre-existing damage (prior to Mr*** owning the vehicle) and would not be covered under this Contract as the Contract specifically excluded pre-existing damages. He indicated he understood
Our representative then advised Mr*** that we could continue with the damages on the left rear tire as the technician stated it appeared to be damages from a nail puncture which is a covered peril. The technician then got back on the phone and we obtained the necessary information regarding the tire, i.etread depth, tire size, brand, cost, etc. The technician was advised that we required pictures of the damaged tire being covered in the claim (left rear tire) showing the puncture to the tire. He was given the e-mail instructions on how to submit pictures of this damage. It was explained to the technician that no work could be completed without receiving authorization from IAS or the claim would be denied. He was advised that typically within hours of pictures being received they would be reviewed and someone would call him back to provide him with an authorization number. He was again advised to make sure no work was completed or the claim would be denied. The technician stated he understood
Mr*** contacted IAS again on 09/25/to make sure he had everything that was needed for his claim before he sent the information in for reimbursement. He advised us that the work had been completed the day before. We asked if the vehicle was still at the repair facility and he advised that he had already picked it up. We explained to Mr*** that we had instructed the repair technician to submit pictures of the damages to the left rear tire for our review and that we would call him back with the claim authorization. However, we had not received any pictures of the damages from Discount Tire therefore, the claim was being denied because the work was completed without being authorized by IAS
.
Mr*** felt like the claim had been pre-authorized since he had initiated the claim and he and the technician called in when he took the vehicle to the repair facility. He stated he received a copy of the e-mail the technician sent to IAS with the pictures of the damages. [Note: Subsequently, Mr*** forwarded his copy of the e-mail/pictures to IAS. The technician e-mailed the pictures to an incorrect e-mail address therefore, we did not receive them. The technician should have received an “undeliverable” e-mail within minutes of sending his e-mail alerting him to the fact that the e-mail was not sent to IAS. It is unclear why the technician did not follon this matter at that time.]
One of the terms and conditions of Mr***’s warranty is that all work must be authorized prior to repairs being completed. The reason we require pre-authorization from the repair technician is so that they can provide independent information regarding the cause of damages, type of damages the tire or wheel sustained, specific information regarding the tread depth at the time of the loss, costs, etc. There must be a minimum tread depth for a claim to be covered and there are some types of damages which are excluded. In addition, some damages can be repaired whereas some must be replaced. This is also an opportunity to negotiate pricing if any replacements are warranted. It is during the telephone call with the technician that it is normally determined if the claim meets the warranty guidelines or not however, there are times when pictures of the damages are required before claim authorization can be given, as was in this case
The terms and conditions of Mr***’s Contract state:
“SECTION 6. YOUR Responsibilities
…It is YOUR responsibility to ensure that the technician has obtained an authorization number for repairs prior to any work being completed on YOUR VEHICLE.”
Mr*** should have been aware of the claim procedures as we had just handled a claim with him directly in July for damages to the right rear tire in which pictures were also required on that claim. It is unfortunate the technician did not follwith IAS to obtain pre-authorization for this work however, it is ultimately Mr***’s responsibility to ensure the claim had been pre-authorized prior to work being completed
We regret Mr*** is not satisfied with our claim decision however, his claim remains denied as repairs were completed without receiving prior authorization for the work
*** *** purchased a Millennium Automotive Protection Plan from *** *** on 08/05/ It is our understanding that Ms*** is Mr***'s spouse.Ms*** initiated a claim with IAS on 11/07/for damages to her leather seat During that telephone call, she was
advised what items she would need to provide to IAS to substantiate her claim (i.equestionnaire, photographs of the damages, and an estimate to repair the damages) A letter was also mailed to the customer that same date outlining what was needed for the claim.IAS received the requested information for this claim on 11/07/(questionnaire), 03/10/(photographs), and on 03/17/(estimate of repairs).Upon receipt of the required information indicated above, the claim was reviewed and authorized on 03/17/for $for the amount of repairs based on the estimate she provided.Ms*** states she called IAS over times and sent over e-mails However, we do not have a record of that much activity from her We spoke to her on 11/7/(twice), 11/10/14, 02/10/15, 03/10/15, 03/11/and on 03/16/(five times) We received e-mails from her on 02/10/15, 03/03/15, and on 03/10/Ultimately, it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that the required information is forwarded for their claim as well as confirming the information is received by IAS.We regret Ms*** feels there were any delays in the handling of her claim however, until the required information is received we are unable to authorize a claim.Ms*** is requesting compensation of $1,for her inconvenience and time while filing her claim The Protection Plan does not provide this type of coverage
Mr. [redacted] purchased a Multi-Shield Protection Plan on his 2009 Porsche 911 from North Park Volkswagen on November 1, 2014. One peril of the guarantee is designed to cover damages to tires and wheels resulting from a road hazard.Mr. [redacted]'s signature on the front of the contract...
acknowledges "I have read the terms of this Multi-Shield Protection Plan and agree to the terms and conditions stated above and on the reverse." Since we were not a party to this transaction, we must assume Mr. [redacted] read this contract before signing and purchasing it as his signature indicates. IAS is an Administrator of this contract therefore, handled the claim.On 11/10/14, Mr. [redacted] contacted IAS to start a claim for tire damages which occurred on 11/5/14. He stated the repairs were completed on 11/7/14 at 6:06 pm Mountain Time. Since Mr. [redacted] purchased a used vehicle and purchased this contract four days prior to this damage occurring, photographs of the damages were requested. Photographs were eventually received of the damaged tire on 12/16/14. However, prior to receiving the photographs we received a copy of the final repair invoice as well as the credit card receipt. The invoice shows the work order was opened on 11/5/14 and was closed on 11/7/14. The customer states in his complaint that repairs were completed the next day, 11/6, however, that is not accurate.One of the terms and conditions of this warranty is that all work must be authorized before repairs have begun. The warranty states in at least eight (8) places that all claims must be pre-authorized. The reason we require pre-authorization from the repair technician is so that they can provide independent information regarding the cause of damages, type of damages the tire or wheel sustained, specific information regarding the tread depth at the time of the loss, costs, etc. There must be a minimum tread depth for a claim to be covered and there are some types of damages which are excluded. In addition, some damages can be repaired whereas some must be replaced. It is during the telephone call with the technician that it is normally determined if the claim meets the warranty guidelines or not. This is also an opportunity to negotiate pricing if any replacements are warranted.Since the final invoice showed the work order was opened on 11/5 and closed on 11/7, there was ample time for either the customer to try and contact IAS again to begin his claim or for the repair technician to contact IAS to initiate the claim. However, neither person contacted IAS to initiate a claim and obtain pre-authorization for repairs. Therefore, based on the terms and conditions of this contract we had no choice but to deny Mr. [redacted]'s claim for tire damages as pre-authorization was not given.The customer states that material sent to IAS was mysteriously lost and he had to send the information again. In his appear letter to IAS, he confirmed he found the e-mail failure notification in his e-mail. In addition, IAS was also able to retrieve an e-mail addressed incorrectly from the customer in our firewall on 12/15/14.Mr. [redacted] appealed the claim decision however, the claim denial was upheld as there was ample time for IAS to be contacted to obtain pre-authorization for this claim. We regret Mr. [redacted] was not satisfied with the claim decision however, all claims must be pre-authorized per the terms and conditions of the warranty he purchased.The customer requested his contract be cancelled on 1/9/15. The contract was cancelled and a refund was issued for $720.48.
Mr. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum (Contract) in connection with the purchase and financing of a 2011 Mazda 3 on 01/14/14. Mr. [redacted] refers throughout his complaint letter to the GAP coverage as being GAP insurance. As indicated on Mr. [redacted] Contract, “This...
Contract is not an insurance policy, does not provide property damage, liability or collision insurance, and does not comply with any financial responsibility law or any other law mandating motor vehicle insurance coverage.” The Contract is designed to waive the difference between the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle involved in the total loss and the outstanding balance still owed on that vehicle from the purchaser to the lender, when a total loss occurs. Mr. [redacted] initiated his claim for GAP benefits on 08/17/16 for a date of loss of 08/01/16. The required information needed to process his claim was requested from him on 08/17/16, 10/20/16, 10/25/16, and again on 10/31/16. We received the final documents on 11/04/16 and the claim was sent to processing. The Contract does not agree to cover any late charges. According to the payment history received from Mr. [redacted] lienholder there were unpaid late charges on the date of loss. Those charges were included in our claim calculations. The claim calculations were: $9,135.66 the payoff of the loan on the date of loss, less $174.71 for late charges shown on the payment history, less $8,585.87 the amount of the insurance check. A claim payment for $375.08 was issued to his lienholder, Huntington National Bank, on 11/14/16 – 10 days after receiving the final claim documents. Mr. [redacted] was required to make payments according to the terms of the finance agreement he signed when purchasing this vehicle. If Mr. [redacted] was not fulfilling his obligation under the finance agreement by continuing to make monthly payments after the vehicle was deemed a total loss, additional interest or late charges could have been added to the loan balance and his credit could have been affected. Mr. [redacted] would be responsible for any fees added to the loan after its inception date. He would need to discuss this matter with the lienholder if he feels his credit has been affected as IAS does not report to credit bureaus. Any remaining balance on this loan would be attributable to the unpaid late charges, any late charges added since the date of this loss, and any additional interest added to the loan since the date of this loss. Mr. [redacted] would be responsible for any of these fees. We regret Mr. [redacted] feels there were delays during the processing of his claim. However, until all documents are received, we are unable to process a claim for GAP benefits.
It is unclear what attachments Ms. [redacted] has attached to her complaint however it appears to be a list of e-mails she attempted to send to IAS on her claim. Based on this list of e-mail subject titles it is clear as to why her e-mails were not received by IAS. The only information that can be in the subject line of an e-mail, unless sent directly to an individual employee, is the six digit claim number. The procedures for e-mailing are explained to every customer. Each one of the e-mails in this list contains something in addition to the six digit claim number therefore, would not have been received by IAS.During the handling of this claim, she was advised that if she was having trouble e-mailing information to IAS then she should probably fax the information instead.Ultimately, it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that they provide the required information for their claim and that the information is received by IAS.Ms. [redacted] should be familiar with the claim procedures as this was her sixth claim with IAS. Again, we regret Ms. [redacted] feels there were delays in the handling of her claim however, until the required information is received we are unable to authorize a claim.IAS has no record of [redacted] requesting Ms. [redacted]'s name be added to this contract or that she be the only listed owner on this contract. Since they remitted the contract to IAS in the name of [redacted], the dealership would need to forward a letter to IAS along with a copy of the finance agreement and/or Buyer's Order showing Ms. [redacted] was in fact an owner of this vehicle in order for her name to be added to the contract.As indicated in our last response, the Protection Plan does not compensate the customer for their time in filing a claim.
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Unfortunately, the response from this business is not accurate Parts of the response are true while others are not I have a work order from the dealership that states "flat tire due to an apparent pot hole." It continues to go on an state the evidence I have uploaded that work order to prove that was the cause The tech called back after examining the tire to share it was an apparent pot hole Still no approval The work order says it and still no approval In addition, when I called from my office phone the call would go through When I called from my cell phone the call would not I tried seven times on my cell phone I contacted Lasco Ford and they agreed with me that this tire should have been covered under the guidelines in which they sold the policy Again, the tire only had 4,miles on it brand new Without a doubt this company should be investigated by the bureau I will be canceling this policy and seeking legal council for this reimbursement of my tire It is not about the money anymore It is the principle that this company is not legit and absent of standard business ethics Regards, [redacted]
Ms [redacted] purchased an Advanced Windshield Protection Windshield Repair or Replacement Limited Warranty on 02/13/from Westside Lexus for her Lexus RX This warranty is designed to cover chips or cracks to the windshield caused by propelled small rocks or stones while the vehicle is being driven on a highway, street, or paved road It also covers stress cracks caused by bumps in the highways, streets, or roads.Ms [redacted] contacted IAS on 2/3/to initiate a claim for damages to her windshield When she was asked when she first noticed the damage to the windshield, she replied "about November I got behind a truck that was spilling stuff on the road So, coming back after Thanksgiving So, whatever week that was." When asked if the damage was caused by a rock, she stated "Uh huh Well, I don't know if it was a rock Something came off the truck."After obtaining some additional information about the damages, the customer was advised that we would be unable to move forward with her claim because she is responsible for reporting the claim within days of the damages occurring Therefore, her claim was being denied.Ms [redacted] then stated "Well, it could have been days I'll just call back and change my mind and tell you it was a month ago." Our representative advised her that the call was already recorded so that would not work She advised the representative that we would get a bad review from her on-line She began using profanity and the representative referred her to the terms and conditions of the Contract she purchased.The warranty Ms [redacted] purchased states:"To make a claim for windshield repair or replacement, which is the only area covered under this Limited Warranty, contact the Administrator at ###-###-#### within days of the appearance of any damage."Ms [redacted] reported the damage as occurring on her way back from Thanksgiving but did not initiate her claim with IAS until 2/3/-over two months later Her claim was denied because she did not report the damages timely per the terms and conditions of her warranty.Her signature on the warranty states "I have read the above Limited warranty and the terms and conditions, and I choose to purchase the Windshield Repair or Limited Warranty."We regret Ms [redacted] does not agree with our claim decision however, we feel we handled the claim based on the terms and conditions of her Contract
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: That tire was NOT replaced recently, it was on the vehicle when I purchased it and alleged guarantee The tire that was replaced was the right front It was replaced by *** [redacted] , owner of [redacted] , owner of the dealership The tire was taken off to get pictures of the complete intrusion of the metal It was NOT afterhours and the store was not closed I did have another claim that was rejected and when that one was explained to me I understood the protocol for filing a claim, did not complain, so this time I followed that protocol The statements concerning the recently replaced tire and afterhours work are absolutely false Regards, [redacted] ***
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The company is attempting to deceive on this claim, the number of correspondences and contacts to the company is valid I have added a FEW pictures of the electronic correspondence and phone calls always accompanied the electronic communicationThe company representative/supervisor--email: [redacted] @iasdirect.com Admitted the following:Athe company had issues receiving emails and faxes AND although I sent them, requested a verified receipt on over 30% of them she claimed that they were not in the system and that their company's email system was not seeing all of the emails and they were aware of this I questioned how weeks and weeks after submitting pictures was I not notified that something was not received Additionally, she requested that I email her directly---which I did-- then I had to fax the info in They PREFER email and KNOW that the email system is defective per their supervisor this means that they are attempting to divert claims and delay payments BThe messages requesting a supervisor were never submitted by the front line personnel She told me this after I complained that I had made at least 5-requests for supervisorThe company has poor management practices all around and I believe attempts to defraud clients Updates to the policy---submitted by [redacted] cars AND myself changing the name on the policy--- have NEVER been made; although the car company and myself sent to the proper location MY name should be on the policy as I am the sole owner The company's staff is rude, does not know their own policies and constantly puts blame on the client vsincompetent staff In closing, it would have been much easier to get this paltry $claim paid in NOVEMBER when I initially submitted all documents The company chose either by company divergent policy or by utter incompetence to ignore this claim and thus breech the contractual relationship The claim was in early NOVEMBER it is ONLY after I filed a claim with the Revdex.com that 3-days later they miraculously come up an approved claim...not in any of the months or weeks before---Why is that? This company attempted to avoid payment of this small claim; I wonder how many others they are duping and how many do not have tenacity to pursue this company's unethical practicesI have spent HOURS on this and have substantial documentation; I will not be satisfied by any means until a portion of my time is compensated---just like they compensate the staff that they use to subvert payment of claims [redacted] -***, [redacted] Regards, [redacted] -***
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The company is LYING; I have numerous calls and CONFIRMATION emails that they were received--- I tagged the emails and NONE were sent back Secondly---I have NEVER directly filed a claim with IAS ----- I will alert [redacted] Cars that they are complaining that the protection that my dealer sold me---with IAS and thus I used when taking the car into the shop---is a problem The dealership could not do the leather repair and thus I became involved "Customer responsibility" is an insult as I have contacted repeatedly this company--your SUPERVISOR--- [redacted] @iasdirect.com ( [redacted] @iasdirect.com) (documented in the complaint) that you had a problem with email system and that it was NOT returning the emails nor notifying the sender/user of a problem She stated that this was a KNOWN problem Additionally, check the phone calls and the numerous requests for a supervisor, call back, etcI NEVER received ANY attnof any merit until I filed this claim I also have the fax confirmation from [redacted] s that they did send the in name change as did I....so that again in a falsehood.This company is OBVIOUSLY working hard to discredit my complaint which is valid and substantiated by documentation; if only they worked hard when unsuspecting, vulnerable customers contacted them for the "insurance" that they provide we would not be here This issue is NOT resolved at this point Regards, [redacted] -***, **
Mr*** purchased a R.O.A.DInTire Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles on 07/26/from Lasco Ford. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard. Road hazard "means debris on the road surface such as
nails, glass, potholes, rocks, tree limbs or any other object or condition not normally found in the roadway." The warranty is not insurance as the customer refers to in his complaint
Mr*** initiated a claim with IAS on 10/20/for tire damages occurring on 10/17/14. Mr*** states the repair technician stated the damage was clearly a result of hitting a pothole. However, when we spoke to the repair technician on 10/20/he could not provide us with a cause of damage for this tire. We advised we would need to speak to the customer regarding the cause of damage then
Mr*** contacted us again on 10/20/14. When initially asked what happened to the tire, Mr*** stated he had no idea. Later in the conversation he was asked again what caused the damages to the right front tire. He advised our representative that it was his wife’s vehicle and that she was driving in a parking lot after getting groceries and had a flat tire. The customer was asked if he saw any physical damage or objects in the tire and he stated no. He was also asked if there had been anything in the roadway that shouldn’t have been there to which he also replied no. We asked Mr*** if he preferred we spoke to his wife since she was driving at the time the damages occurred and he declined the same stating it was his car and his insurance coverage
During the telephone conversation, Mr*** was advised that we were unable to proceed with his claim without a cause of damage as not all damages are covered under the warranty. He was asked again if he knew what caused the damage to the tire and he again indicated he had no idea
In order for there to be coverage under the warranty, there must be a known road hazard as all damages are not covered by this warranty
We regret Mr*** is not satisfied with our claim decision however, his claim remains denied for an unknown cause of damage
In his complaint, Mr*** accuses IAS of blocking his telephone number, preventing IAS from receiving his call. IAS has not blocked his telephone number. It appears either the cell phone tower was overloaded or all telephone circuits were busy
If Mr*** wishes to cancel his warranty, he must contact the dealership to complete the cancellation request. The refund will be calculated based on the terms and conditions stated within his warranty:
"YOU may cancel this CONTRACT at any time by surrendering it to the DEALER at the ISSUING DEALER’S address listed in the Proof of Registration section of this CONTRACT, along with a written request for cancellation. If YOU request a cancellation request within sixty (60) days of the purchase of this CONTRACT, the CONTRACT shall be void and a full refund of the CONTRACT price will be made by the DEALER provided that no claim has been made against the CONTRACT during this period. If a claim has been made against the CONTRACT or if the CONTRACT has been in your possession for more than sixty (60) days, the DEALER will make a pro-rata refund less a thirty-five dollar ($35) cancellation fee, less claims paid. This refund will be based on the elapsed time from the CONTRACT SALE DATE, and will only be provided if YOU are the original purchaser of this CONTRACT."
Mr*** purchased a R.O.A.DInTire Vehicle Tire and Wheel Guarantee (Contract) on 02/25/from Mercedes-Benz of *** *** for his Mercedes-Benz C300. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover tire and wheel damages resulting from a road hazardOn 02/02/at approximately
8:am central time, Mr*** contacted IAS to initiate a claim for tire damages occurring on 02/01/15. He indicated his tire went flat and he changed his tire in the snow storm. He stated he had not had time to inspect the damages yetDuring that phone call, Mr*** was advised he had two options of what type of repair facilities he could take the vehicle toThe claim payment procedures were explained to him as well. Mr*** was advised by our representative that the repair technician must contact IAS before the repairs were completed or his claim would be denied. He acknowledged that he understood the proceduresOn 02/03/at approximately 8;am central time, a claim was initiated online for this same damage. At approximately 9:am central time, the customer contacted IAS. The claim procedures were again explained to him as well as the payment process, and he was advised that if any work was done before the claim was authorized by IAS the claim would be denied. Again, he indicated he understood the claim proceduresThe reason we require pre-authorization is so the repair technician can provide independent information regarding the cause of damages, type of damages the tire or wheel sustained, specific information regarding the tread depth at the time of loss, costs, etc. There must be a minimum tread depth for a claim to be covered and there are some types of losses which are excluded under the warranty. It is during the telephone call with the technician that it is determined if the claim meets the warranty guidelines or notOn 02/03/at approximately 8:am central time, IAS received an invoice for a flat tire repair completed by Belle Tire on 02/02/at 11:am. Since this claim had not been authorized by IAS prior to repairs being completed, Mr***'s claim was denied. The claim procedures were explained twice to Mr*** for this claim as well as any repairs completed without IAS’ authorization would be denied. Both times he indicated he understood the claim process. The Contract states in at least six places that the claim must be pre-authorized by IAS before repairs. We had no choice but to deny his claim since Mr*** chose to have repairs completed without following the claim procedures. This was not Mr***’s first claim for tire and/or wheel damages with IAS. He should be familiar with the terms and conditions of his Contract. We regret he is not satisfied with our claim decision however, his claim remains denied as no pre-authorization was received for repairs which is a condition of this Contract
Yes, if Mr*** attempted to contact IAS after business hours we would not have been available. However, he had the opportunity to contact IAS during the next two days while the tire was being ordered and while repairs were being made to initiate his claim and receive pre-authorization. He failed to do so therefore, his claim was denied. It is unclear why Mr*** contacted Porsche of North America for assistance when his warranty covers hour emergency road service if you call the number provided on the warranty
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: The company is LYING; I have numerous calls and CONFIRMATION emails that they were received--- I tagged the emails and NONE were sent back. Secondly---I have NEVER directly filed a claim with IAS ----- I will alert Euromotor Cars that they are complaining that the protection that my dealer sold me---with IAS and thus I used when taking the car into the shop---is a problem. The dealership could not do the leather repair and thus I became involved. "Customer responsibility" is an insult as I have contacted repeatedly this company--your SUPERVISOR--- ***@iasdirect.com (***@iasdirect.com) (documented in the complaint) that you had a problem with email system and that it was NOT returning the emails nor notifying the sender/user of a problem. She stated that this was a KNOWN problem. Additionally, check the phone calls and the numerous requests for a supervisor, call back, etcI NEVER received ANY attnof any merit until I filed this claim. I also have the fax confirmation from *** that they did send the in name change as did I....so that again in a falsehood.This company is OBVIOUSLY working hard to discredit my complaint which is valid and substantiated by documentation; if only they worked hard when unsuspecting, vulnerable customers contacted them for the "insurance" that they provide we would not be here. This issue is NOT resolved at this point
Regards,
*** ***, **
The repair facility stated that the work was completed after hours, not IAS. However, the invoice clearly shows the work was completed during business hours and was completed without receiving authorization from IAS for repairs. The claim remains denied as the work was completed without receiving authorization from IAS beforehand
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The IAS rep verbally approved the tire repair to myself and the technician and IAS has a recording of this in thier records
Everything was done in accordance with the contract, pre-authorization was sought and given verbally to which both myself, the technician, and his manager heard via speakerphone
IAS failed to uphold thier end of the contract for a tire warranty for road hazard damage that was sustained and should have been coveredFurthermore, coverage was extended for a tire that under thier warranty terms should have never been covered but how would an individual know that I tire had a patch unless you require the dealer to take all of the tires off and have an IAS agent present to inspect them
Consumers should be aware of IAS's tactics and I feel the need to contact the dealership I bought the vehicle from and every dealership that I have contacts with to share the experience the situation I had with IAS to protect other consumers
The only way I will be satisfied is if IAS agrees to pay the claim on the tire that they should have covered in the first place
Regards,
*** ***
It is unclear what attachments Ms***-*** has attached to her complaint however it appears to be a list of e-mails she attempted to send to IAS on her claim Based on this list of e-mail subject titles it is clear as to why her e-mails were not received by IAS The only information that can be in the subject line of an e-mail, unless sent directly to an individual employee, is the six digit claim number The procedures for e-mailing are explained to every customer Each one of the e-mails in this list contains something in addition to the six digit claim number therefore, would not have been received by IAS.During the handling of this claim, she was advised that if she was having trouble e-mailing information to IAS then she should probably fax the information instead.Ultimately, it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that they provide the required information for their claim and that the information is received by IAS.Ms***-*** should be familiar with the claim procedures as this was her sixth claim with IAS Again, we regret Ms***-*** feels there were delays in the handling of her claim however, until the required information is received we are unable to authorize a claim.IAS has no record of Euro Motorcars requesting Ms***-***'s name be added to this contract or that she be the only listed owner on this contract Since they remitted the contract to IAS in the name of Colin Carlton ***, the dealership would need to forward a letter to IAS along with a copy of the finance agreement and/or Buyer's Order showing Ms***-*** was in fact an owner of this vehicle in order for her name to be added to the contract.As indicated in our last response, the Protection Plan does not compensate the customer for their time in filing a claim
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:1. The company is attempting to deceive on this claim, the number of correspondences and contacts to the company is valid. I have added a FEW pictures of the electronic correspondence and phone calls always accompanied the electronic communicationThe company representative/supervisor--email: ***@iasdirect.com Admitted the following:Athe company had issues receiving emails and faxes AND although I sent them, requested a verified receipt on over 30% of them she claimed that they were not in the system and that their company's email system was not seeing all of the emails and they were aware of this. I questioned how weeks and weeks after submitting pictures was I not notified that something was not received. Additionally, she requested that I email her directly---which I did-- then I had to fax the info in. They PREFER email and KNOW that the email system is defective per their supervisor this means that they are attempting to divert claims and delay payments. BThe messages requesting a supervisor were never submitted by the front line personnel. She told me this after I complained that I had made at least 5-requests for supervisorThe company has poor management practices all around and I believe attempts to defraud clients. Updates to the policy---submitted by EuroMotor cars AND myself changing the name on the policy--- have NEVER been made; although the car company and myself sent to the proper location. MY name should be on the policy as I am the sole owner. The company's staff is rude, does not know their own policies and constantly puts blame on the client vsincompetent staff. In closing, it would have been much easier to get this paltry $claim paid in NOVEMBER when I initially submitted all documents. The company chose either by company divergent policy or by utter incompetence to ignore this claim and thus breech the contractual relationship. The claim was in early NOVEMBER it is ONLY after I filed a claim with the Revdex.com that 3-days later they miraculously come up an approved claim...not in any of the months or weeks before---Why is that? This company attempted to avoid payment of this small claim; I wonder how many others they are duping and how many do not have tenacity to pursue this company's unethical practices. I have spent HOURS on this and have substantial documentation; I will not be satisfied by any means until a portion of my time is compensated---just like they compensate the staff that they use to subvert payment of claims. *** ***, **
Regards,
*** ***
As indicated in our prior response, Mr*** did not purchase an all encompassing insurance policy for his tires and wheels. He purchased a tire and wheel guarantee designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard only. There are many perils which cause damage to tires and wheels which are not covered under this Contract. Since Mr*** is unable to advise specifically what caused the damage to his tire, there is no coverage for the damage as we are unable to determine if the damages are covered under this warranty without knowing what occurred
?
When IAS spoke to the repair technician at Maxey Ford he was unable to provide us with his professional opinion as to what caused the damage to this tire. He stated “he wouldn’t know, maybe a pothole or something like that or a curb.” Curb damage is not a covered peril under this warranty
?
Since statements tend to change once claims are denied, we must go with the initial responses received when handling a claim. The fact that the invoice from the repair facility now states “apparent pothole impact” damage does not change our claim decision as when we originally spoke to the technician he could not provide us with the cause of damage
It is unfortunate Mr*** assumes we have the time or desire to block calls coming from his cell phone. IAS has not blocked his calls. If he is unable to get through to IAS there must be some other reason as to why, and he should contact IAS using his business phone if he is successful getting through on that line
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:IAS is blatantly misstating what occurred during this claim Belle Tire contacted IAS and received pre-approval IAS is correct in stating this is not the first time I have used my warranty I understand how IAS is constantly trying to avoid honoring the terms of the contact it entered into, as I have had to repeatedly fight to have claims honored Notably, I spoke with *** at IAS on Monday, May 19, about this issue He refused to give me his last name He then said that my claim of appeal would be reviewed on Friday (5/22/15) and that a decision would be transmitted to me next week Instead, I was stunned to find an email the next day from IAS denying my appeal How could it have been denied if the meeting on Friday had not been held? *** then went on to indicate that IAS always presumes that claims are denied unless it is convinced that claim should be honored.Once again, IAS continues to be intentionally deceitful about its business practices, as it has throughout the three years I have had the warranty I continue to request a full refund.
Regards,
*** ***
Mr*** purchased a Tire & Wheel Protect Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles from ***’s Hyundai for his Chevrolet Crew Cab (used) on July 15, 2014. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard
On 08/25/14, Mr
*** contacted IAS to initiate a claim for damages to the left rear and right front tires of his vehicle. The claim procedures were explained to him and he was advised to have the repair technician contact us prior to the repairs taking place as all claims require pre-authorization for repairs
On 09/23/14, we received a call from a technician at Discount Tire. The customer was also present at the repair facility. The technician informed us that the right front tire had a faulty patch repair. Our representative explained to the technician that since that repair was not handled through IAS that we would be unable to handle any further repairs to that tire. Mr*** then got on the phone and stated he did not have that repair done and that he must have bought the vehicle after that tire had been repaired. Our representative explained that that damage would be considered pre-existing damage (prior to Mr*** owning the vehicle) and would not be covered under this Contract as the Contract specifically excluded pre-existing damages. He indicated he understood
Our representative then advised Mr*** that we could continue with the damages on the left rear tire as the technician stated it appeared to be damages from a nail puncture which is a covered peril. The technician then got back on the phone and we obtained the necessary information regarding the tire, i.etread depth, tire size, brand, cost, etc. The technician was advised that we required pictures of the damaged tire being covered in the claim (left rear tire) showing the puncture to the tire. He was given the e-mail instructions on how to submit pictures of this damage. It was explained to the technician that no work could be completed without receiving authorization from IAS or the claim would be denied. He was advised that typically within hours of pictures being received they would be reviewed and someone would call him back to provide him with an authorization number. He was again advised to make sure no work was completed or the claim would be denied. The technician stated he understood
Mr*** contacted IAS again on 09/25/to make sure he had everything that was needed for his claim before he sent the information in for reimbursement. He advised us that the work had been completed the day before. We asked if the vehicle was still at the repair facility and he advised that he had already picked it up. We explained to Mr*** that we had instructed the repair technician to submit pictures of the damages to the left rear tire for our review and that we would call him back with the claim authorization. However, we had not received any pictures of the damages from Discount Tire therefore, the claim was being denied because the work was completed without being authorized by IAS
.
Mr*** felt like the claim had been pre-authorized since he had initiated the claim and he and the technician called in when he took the vehicle to the repair facility. He stated he received a copy of the e-mail the technician sent to IAS with the pictures of the damages. [Note: Subsequently, Mr*** forwarded his copy of the e-mail/pictures to IAS. The technician e-mailed the pictures to an incorrect e-mail address therefore, we did not receive them. The technician should have received an “undeliverable” e-mail within minutes of sending his e-mail alerting him to the fact that the e-mail was not sent to IAS. It is unclear why the technician did not follon this matter at that time.]
One of the terms and conditions of Mr***’s warranty is that all work must be authorized prior to repairs being completed. The reason we require pre-authorization from the repair technician is so that they can provide independent information regarding the cause of damages, type of damages the tire or wheel sustained, specific information regarding the tread depth at the time of the loss, costs, etc. There must be a minimum tread depth for a claim to be covered and there are some types of damages which are excluded. In addition, some damages can be repaired whereas some must be replaced. This is also an opportunity to negotiate pricing if any replacements are warranted. It is during the telephone call with the technician that it is normally determined if the claim meets the warranty guidelines or not however, there are times when pictures of the damages are required before claim authorization can be given, as was in this case
The terms and conditions of Mr***’s Contract state:
“SECTION 6. YOUR Responsibilities
…It is YOUR responsibility to ensure that the technician has obtained an authorization number for repairs prior to any work being completed on YOUR VEHICLE.”
Mr*** should have been aware of the claim procedures as we had just handled a claim with him directly in July for damages to the right rear tire in which pictures were also required on that claim. It is unfortunate the technician did not follwith IAS to obtain pre-authorization for this work however, it is ultimately Mr***’s responsibility to ensure the claim had been pre-authorized prior to work being completed
We regret Mr*** is not satisfied with our claim decision however, his claim remains denied as repairs were completed without receiving prior authorization for the work
*** *** purchased a Millennium Automotive Protection Plan from *** *** on 08/05/ It is our understanding that Ms*** is Mr***'s spouse.Ms*** initiated a claim with IAS on 11/07/for damages to her leather seat During that telephone call, she was
advised what items she would need to provide to IAS to substantiate her claim (i.equestionnaire, photographs of the damages, and an estimate to repair the damages) A letter was also mailed to the customer that same date outlining what was needed for the claim.IAS received the requested information for this claim on 11/07/(questionnaire), 03/10/(photographs), and on 03/17/(estimate of repairs).Upon receipt of the required information indicated above, the claim was reviewed and authorized on 03/17/for $for the amount of repairs based on the estimate she provided.Ms*** states she called IAS over times and sent over e-mails However, we do not have a record of that much activity from her We spoke to her on 11/7/(twice), 11/10/14, 02/10/15, 03/10/15, 03/11/and on 03/16/(five times) We received e-mails from her on 02/10/15, 03/03/15, and on 03/10/Ultimately, it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that the required information is forwarded for their claim as well as confirming the information is received by IAS.We regret Ms*** feels there were any delays in the handling of her claim however, until the required information is received we are unable to authorize a claim.Ms*** is requesting compensation of $1,for her inconvenience and time while filing her claim The Protection Plan does not provide this type of coverage
Mr. [redacted] purchased a Multi-Shield Protection Plan on his 2009 Porsche 911 from North Park Volkswagen on November 1, 2014. One peril of the guarantee is designed to cover damages to tires and wheels resulting from a road hazard.Mr. [redacted]'s signature on the front of the contract...
acknowledges "I have read the terms of this Multi-Shield Protection Plan and agree to the terms and conditions stated above and on the reverse." Since we were not a party to this transaction, we must assume Mr. [redacted] read this contract before signing and purchasing it as his signature indicates. IAS is an Administrator of this contract therefore, handled the claim.On 11/10/14, Mr. [redacted] contacted IAS to start a claim for tire damages which occurred on 11/5/14. He stated the repairs were completed on 11/7/14 at 6:06 pm Mountain Time. Since Mr. [redacted] purchased a used vehicle and purchased this contract four days prior to this damage occurring, photographs of the damages were requested. Photographs were eventually received of the damaged tire on 12/16/14. However, prior to receiving the photographs we received a copy of the final repair invoice as well as the credit card receipt. The invoice shows the work order was opened on 11/5/14 and was closed on 11/7/14. The customer states in his complaint that repairs were completed the next day, 11/6, however, that is not accurate.One of the terms and conditions of this warranty is that all work must be authorized before repairs have begun. The warranty states in at least eight (8) places that all claims must be pre-authorized. The reason we require pre-authorization from the repair technician is so that they can provide independent information regarding the cause of damages, type of damages the tire or wheel sustained, specific information regarding the tread depth at the time of the loss, costs, etc. There must be a minimum tread depth for a claim to be covered and there are some types of damages which are excluded. In addition, some damages can be repaired whereas some must be replaced. It is during the telephone call with the technician that it is normally determined if the claim meets the warranty guidelines or not. This is also an opportunity to negotiate pricing if any replacements are warranted.Since the final invoice showed the work order was opened on 11/5 and closed on 11/7, there was ample time for either the customer to try and contact IAS again to begin his claim or for the repair technician to contact IAS to initiate the claim. However, neither person contacted IAS to initiate a claim and obtain pre-authorization for repairs. Therefore, based on the terms and conditions of this contract we had no choice but to deny Mr. [redacted]'s claim for tire damages as pre-authorization was not given.The customer states that material sent to IAS was mysteriously lost and he had to send the information again. In his appear letter to IAS, he confirmed he found the e-mail failure notification in his e-mail. In addition, IAS was also able to retrieve an e-mail addressed incorrectly from the customer in our firewall on 12/15/14.Mr. [redacted] appealed the claim decision however, the claim denial was upheld as there was ample time for IAS to be contacted to obtain pre-authorization for this claim. We regret Mr. [redacted] was not satisfied with the claim decision however, all claims must be pre-authorized per the terms and conditions of the warranty he purchased.The customer requested his contract be cancelled on 1/9/15. The contract was cancelled and a refund was issued for $720.48.
Mr. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum (Contract) in connection with the purchase and financing of a 2011 Mazda 3 on 01/14/14. Mr. [redacted] refers throughout his complaint letter to the GAP coverage as being GAP insurance. As indicated on Mr. [redacted] Contract, “This...
Contract is not an insurance policy, does not provide property damage, liability or collision insurance, and does not comply with any financial responsibility law or any other law mandating motor vehicle insurance coverage.” The Contract is designed to waive the difference between the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle involved in the total loss and the outstanding balance still owed on that vehicle from the purchaser to the lender, when a total loss occurs. Mr. [redacted] initiated his claim for GAP benefits on 08/17/16 for a date of loss of 08/01/16. The required information needed to process his claim was requested from him on 08/17/16, 10/20/16, 10/25/16, and again on 10/31/16. We received the final documents on 11/04/16 and the claim was sent to processing. The Contract does not agree to cover any late charges. According to the payment history received from Mr. [redacted] lienholder there were unpaid late charges on the date of loss. Those charges were included in our claim calculations. The claim calculations were: $9,135.66 the payoff of the loan on the date of loss, less $174.71 for late charges shown on the payment history, less $8,585.87 the amount of the insurance check. A claim payment for $375.08 was issued to his lienholder, Huntington National Bank, on 11/14/16 – 10 days after receiving the final claim documents. Mr. [redacted] was required to make payments according to the terms of the finance agreement he signed when purchasing this vehicle. If Mr. [redacted] was not fulfilling his obligation under the finance agreement by continuing to make monthly payments after the vehicle was deemed a total loss, additional interest or late charges could have been added to the loan balance and his credit could have been affected. Mr. [redacted] would be responsible for any fees added to the loan after its inception date. He would need to discuss this matter with the lienholder if he feels his credit has been affected as IAS does not report to credit bureaus. Any remaining balance on this loan would be attributable to the unpaid late charges, any late charges added since the date of this loss, and any additional interest added to the loan since the date of this loss. Mr. [redacted] would be responsible for any of these fees. We regret Mr. [redacted] feels there were delays during the processing of his claim. However, until all documents are received, we are unable to process a claim for GAP benefits.
It is unclear what attachments Ms. [redacted] has attached to her complaint however it appears to be a list of e-mails she attempted to send to IAS on her claim. Based on this list of e-mail subject titles it is clear as to why her e-mails were not received by IAS. The only information that can be in the subject line of an e-mail, unless sent directly to an individual employee, is the six digit claim number. The procedures for e-mailing are explained to every customer. Each one of the e-mails in this list contains something in addition to the six digit claim number therefore, would not have been received by IAS.During the handling of this claim, she was advised that if she was having trouble e-mailing information to IAS then she should probably fax the information instead.Ultimately, it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that they provide the required information for their claim and that the information is received by IAS.Ms. [redacted] should be familiar with the claim procedures as this was her sixth claim with IAS. Again, we regret Ms. [redacted] feels there were delays in the handling of her claim however, until the required information is received we are unable to authorize a claim.IAS has no record of [redacted] requesting Ms. [redacted]'s name be added to this contract or that she be the only listed owner on this contract. Since they remitted the contract to IAS in the name of [redacted], the dealership would need to forward a letter to IAS along with a copy of the finance agreement and/or Buyer's Order showing Ms. [redacted] was in fact an owner of this vehicle in order for her name to be added to the contract.As indicated in our last response, the Protection Plan does not compensate the customer for their time in filing a claim.