Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I like how this company brings up claims for a vehicle I had over 7 years ago and completely fail to mention that I have a NEW policy with them now for a completely different vehicle. These tire and wheel warranties are all scams as far as I'm concerned and their claims process is very archaic. These type of companies will be out of business as current technology and new processes will put them out of business with these outdated methods.
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum (Contract) for her 2013 Ford Escape. She refers to the Contract as being gap insurance. Her Contract states: “Warning: This Contract is not an insurance policy and 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. The Contract does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage. The insurance company deducted $400 from Ms. [redacted] total loss settlement for the condition of the glass on the vehicle. Therefore, this deduction was also considered in the GAP claim calculations. The terms and conditions of the Contract state: “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of Date of Loss. This amount shall not include any…future interest…Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…or any proceeds which may be recovered by canceling any insurance coverages, service contracts and/or warranties, credit life, accidental and health insurance or other cancelable items.” Ms. [redacted] purchased an extended service contract and an etch warranty when she purchased her vehicle. The refunds are actually paid to the lienholder by another entity so are deducted from the claim benefits. An extension was found on the payment history from her lienholder. Since extensions are not covered under this Contract, a deduction was included in our claim figures. Ms. [redacted] was required to make payments according to the terms of the finance agreement she signed when purchasing this vehicle. If she was not fulfilling her 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 her credit could have been affected. Ms. [redacted] would be responsible for any fees added to the loan after its inception date and she would need to discuss this matter with her lienholder if she feels her credit has been affected as IAS does not report to credit bureaus. A payment for $150.89 was issued to her lienholder for the GAP deficiency owed on 03/27/17. Since a GAP deficiency was paid out under this Contract, Ms. [redacted] is not entitled to a refund of the premium she paid for the GAP Contract. Any remaining balance on Ms. [redacted]’s loan is attributable to the condition adjustment ($400), the extension found on the payment history ($529.36), any additional interest that has accrued since the date of this loss (5.79%), and any late fees being charged since the date of loss. In the event Ms. [redacted] can’t locate her GAP Contract, we will e-mail her a copy of it after responding to her concerns. Tell us why here...
On 04/23/08, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the left rear wheel for curb damage. The wheel was repaired. Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $150.00 on 06/05/08.On 05/07/08, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the left front tire. The tire was replaced. Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $357.58 on 05/30/08.On 05/28/09, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the right rear tire. The tire was repaired. Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $37.52 on 05/29/09.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
the he proof is there in the documentation. It is clear. I believe this will hold up in a court of law or public opinion. It is clear it was a pothole. I was not the original driver. I didn't know.
I will continue to reject IAS responses until they make good on what they sold me.
I want ant to do everything in my power to alert other consumers about the lack of business ethics. The work order clearly stated it was from an apparent pothole.
I have no intentions to lie nor change my story as the company assumes. I have not changed my story. Only going by the paperwork I was given.
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms.
[redacted] purchased a Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract on her
vehicle on April 14, 2014. One of the
coverages under the Contract is 24-Hour Toll-Free Assistance which is provided
by an independent entity.The
Contract states service will be provided for covered services up...
to $50 for
help in changing an inflated spare or up to $50 for towing your vehicle to the
closest service station.Ms.
[redacted] states in her complaint that she contacted Road Side Assistance and
they could not provide any assistance to her because that interstate was too
busy to provide service on. We contacted
Road Side Assistance (who records all telephone calls) and asked them to review
the call. The results of their review
showed that it was explained to Ms. [redacted] that they called several providers
to go out and change her tire but due to safety concerns, they would not change
the tire on the Interstate. The
providers advised they would have to tow the vehicle off the interstate and
then change the tire however, there would be some additional charges that would
not be covered under her Contract. Ms.
[redacted] advised Road Side Assistance that she would not pay any additional
charges, and would just contact IAS.Ms.
[redacted] chose not to accept assistance from Road Side Assistance because there
would be additional charges not covered under the Contract. That was a choice she made.We
regret she was not satisfied with the outcome of her call with Road Side
Assistance.Ms.
[redacted] commented that she would like a full refund on this Contract. Per the terms and conditions of her Contract,
she can cancel the Contract at any time by surrendering it to the issuing
dealer along with a written request to cancel. “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.”
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 4,500 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]
Mr. [redacted] states in his latest comments that a technician from Belle Tire contacted IAS and received pre-approval for his repairs. However, our records do not indicate IAS ever received a call from Belle Tire for this claim for this damage. Since all calls are recorded in our Claim Department, we can confirm whether a call was received or not. We would need to know the telephone number the call was made from as well as the date and approximate time that the technician contacted IAS. The claim process is very simple and the claim procedures were explained to Mr. [redacted] during all of his claims. Unfortunately, if the procedures are not followed then the claim is denied. Procedures are in place for a reason. It is unclear as to why Mr. [redacted] is upset his appeal was heard prior to a Friday. Typically, all appeals are reviewed on Fridays however, that week there was time to review some appeals before that day. That would be considered a good thing to most customers. As stated previously, this was not Mr. [redacted]’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. Thanks. [redacted]
[redacted] Special Claims Analyst
Mr. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum (Contract) from [redacted] Chevrolet providing GAP coverage in connection with the purchase and financing of a 2013 Chevrolet Malibu on July 31, 2013. A claim was initiated on Mr. [redacted]’s behalf on 10/26/16 for a date of loss of...
07/27/16. The required claim information was requested from Mr. [redacted] in writing on 10/27/16, 11/22/16, and on 12/14/16. The required information was also requested from Mr. [redacted] verbally on 12/12/16 and 12/22/16. After receiving Mr. [redacted]’s Revdex.com complaint, we contacted the insurance company directly on 12/22/16, in an attempt to assist the customer in obtaining the required claim documentation. We had to contact the insurance company again on 12/29/16 to request the required information a second time. Later that same day, we received an e-mail from the insurance adjuster with the missing documentation. The claim was then sent for review and processing. The Contract states: The Contract does not agree to cover any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement. According to the total loss evaluation received from the insurance company, there was a condition adjustment of $729 for stains to the carpets and damage to the front bumper. This adjustment was also deducted in the GAP calculations. “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of Date of Loss. This amount shall not include…any proceeds which may be recovered by canceling any insurance coverages, service contracts and/or warranties…” The service contract refund is actually paid to the lienholder by another entity so is deducted from the claim benefits. Our specific GAP Benefit Calculations were: Gross Unpaid Balance (on dol) = $12,967.77 Less Service Contract Refund = $ 1,419.44 Less Condition Adjustments = $ 729.00 Less ACV (insurance checks) = ...⇄ $10,970.69 GAP BENEFITS = $ (- 151.36) There were no GAP benefits available for Mr. [redacted] therefore, his claim was denied on December 30, 2016. A denial letter was mailed to the customer. We believe we have processed the claim according to the language of the waiver. Tell us why here...
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] [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]
**. [redacted] purchased a Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles on 04/10/12 from Chevrolet Cadillac of Turnersvillle on his 2008 Cadillac Escalade. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard.**. [redacted] initiated a claim...
with IAS on 7/15/15 for damages to his tire (left front) and wheels (left front, left rear and right front) due to hitting apothole(s). We requested and received photographs of the damaged areas for our review.Based on our review of the damages, it appeared the majority of the damages were a result of curb damage which is not covered under this contract. We dispatched an independent appraiser to go to the repair facility and inspect the damages and provide us with a report of same.According to the independent appraiser, (1) the left front tire had a pinch cut from a side scrape – impact was not showing cords and still held air, (2) the left front wheel’s outer lip was broken off – consistent with curb damage and still held air, (3) the right front tire had no damage, (4) the right front wheel’souter lip was severely bent and folded over from a pot hole impact, (5) the left rear tire had no damage, (6) the left rear outer wheel lip was visibly cracked – consistent with curb damage and still held air, (7) the right rear tire had no damage, and the (8) the right rear wheel had curb rash and still held air.Note: In February 2015, **. [redacted] made a claim for damages to the right front tire resulting from curb damages. Because curb damage is not covered under his contract his claim was denied. During the current claim we are discussing in this complaint, we requested proof from **. [redacted] showing that the damage from the February 2015 claim had been replaced. He informed us that he bought a tire with cash from a neighborhood shop and could not provide a receipt for same. Since this damage was previously denied under a previous claim, it is not eligible for consideration in future claims untilwe are provided with proof of its replacement.The contract states “Wheels are eligible for replacement only if the damages from a ROAD HAZARD will not allow the tire to seal or the wheel is unsafe for use.”The contract also states cosmetic damage, sidewall damage, and damage caused by impact with a curb are non-covered damages.The only damaged area falling within the scope of **. [redacted]’ contract was the damage to the right front wheel. Therefore, his claim was authorized for thereplacement of the right front wheel. Partial payment of these repairs was made on 7/27/15 for $550.00, and an additional payment was issued today for $26.50 after the final invoice was received.**. [redacted] will need to provide copies of any invoices/receipts for the damaged areas not covered under his claims in order for any future damage to these same areas to be considered.We regret **. [redacted] is not satisfied with our claim decision. However, we feel we have paid for the damages covered under this contract.
We are in receipt of Ms. [redacted] complaint. Ms. [redacted] lienholder, [redacted], initiated a claim for possible GAP benefits on her behalf on 01/26/17. IAS mailed letters to both Ms. [redacted] and [redacted] on 1/30/17, 3/23/17 and again on 5/21/17 requesting the required information...
needed in order to process her claim for GAP benefits. In addition, IAS also e-mailed [redacted] on 2/91/7 and verbally spoke with them on 5/261/7 again requesting the missing information. IAS also spoke to Ms. [redacted] on 2/13/17, 3/7/17 and on 4/6/17 again requesting the missing information. To date, IAS has not been provided with the required information to process this claim. IAS needs a complete copy of the GAP Vehicle Protection Debt Relief Waiver Addendum (Contract) sold to Ms. [redacted] Until this GAP Contract is received, we are unable to process her claim for GAP benefits. Ms. [redacted] stated in her complaint letter that IAS contacted her four days after the accident and advised her ‘we would take care of everything.’ IAS never called Ms. [redacted] so it is now known who she would have spoken to four days after the loss. Ms. [redacted] also states she called IAS twelve times however, she has only called IAS three times. All phone calls are recorded. In addition, IAS has only received two faxes that were not sent from [redacted]. Therefore, if Ms. [redacted] faxed everything five times at least three of those faxes were not received by IAS. The customer refers in her complaint letter as having purchased GAP insurance. As indicated on the front page of Ms. [redacted] Contract, “I understand that this Debt Relief Waiver Addendum is not an offer of insurance coverage.” The GAP Contract does not agree to cover delinquent payments or extensions. According to the payment history received from [redacted] there was one (1) extension. Ms. [redacted] would remain responsible for this extension. Ms. [redacted] was required to make payments according to the terms and conditions of the finance agreement she signed when purchasing this vehicle. If Ms. [redacted] has not been fulfilling her obligation under the finance agreement by continuing to make monthly payments after the vehicle was deemed a total loss, additional interest or additional late charges could have been added to the loan balance and her credit could have been affected. Ms. [redacted] would be responsible for any fees added to the loan after its inception date and she would need to discuss this matter with [redacted] if she feels her credit has been affected as IAS does not report to credit bureaus. Upon receipt of the GAP Contract Ms. [redacted] purchased, we will be able to process her claim. Tell us why here...
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, etc... I NEVER received ANY attn. of 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], **
Complaint: [redacted]
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 communication.2. The company representative/supervisor--email: [redacted]@iasdirect.com Admitted the following:A. the 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. B. The 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 5-6 requests for supervisor.3. The 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. 4. The company's staff is rude, does not know their own policies and constantly puts blame on the client vs. incompetent staff. In closing, it would have been much easier to get this paltry $300 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 3-4 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. [redacted], **
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum from Sunrise Buick GMC providing GAP coverage in connection with the purchase and financing of a 2011 Buick Lacrosse on 09/21/14. Ms. [redacted] initiated her claim on 1/18/17 and the claim was concluded on 2/27/17. 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. Per the terms and conditions of the GAP Contract, “Actual Cash Value means the retail value of the Covered Collateral on the Date of Loss, prior to its physical damage or theft, as determined by the Primary Insurance carrier (including tax, title and license), less the Primary Insurance deductible amount, where permitted by law. (NOTE: This GAP Waiver Addendum does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage.)” According to the total loss evaluation received from [redacted] there was a conditional adjustment of $70 for minor damage to the exterior trim of the vehicle. Therefore, this deduction was also included in the GAP claim calculations. The Contract states “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of the Date of Loss. This amount shall not include any and all…future interest…finance charges, late charges, Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…” According to the payment history IAS received from her lienholder[redacted] the lienholder added $199.00 for finance fees to the beginning loan balance. In addition, her payment history included two extensions. Since the GAP Contract does not cover finance charges and extensions those fees were included in our claim calculations. The Contract also states “In the event of a request for waiver, You must provide…to the GAP Administrator….the following documentation before any waiver under this Addendum can be processed…” Due to privacy laws, IAS is unable to obtain her personal information from insurance companies, lienholders, etc. Therefore, the customer is responsible for obtaining and providing the required claim documents to IAS for their claim. The balance of this loan on the date of loss was $13,672.84, less the insurance check $12,950.46, less the conditional adjustment $70, less the finance charge $199, less the 2 extensions $626.76, equals (- $173.38). Therefore, there was not a GAP deficiency to be paid out under the terms of her GAP Contract. The Cancellation Provisions of her Contract state “If a cancellation is requested after 30 days You will receive a refund/credit of the GAP Waiver Addendum fee calculated in accordance with the Pro-rata refund (or by the refund method as required in Your state) less a $25 cancellation fee.” Ms. [redacted] needs to contact the selling dealership to request and sign the appropriate cancellation request. Any pro-rata refund due on the $800 cost of the Contract would be payable to the lienholder unless she provides the dealership with proof that her loan has been paid in full. We regret Ms. [redacted] is not satisfied with the prompt handling of her claim. There was no GAP deficiency to be paid out under this Contract therefore, her claim was denied. Any remaining balance on her loan is attributable to the finance charge added to the loan after its inception, the conditional adjustment, the two extensions, any late charges that have been added to the loan since the date of loss, and any additional interest added to the loan since the date of loss. Ms. [redacted] remains responsible for any of these fees as they are not covered by the GAP Contract. Tell us why here...
Mr. [redacted] purchased a R.O.A.D. InTire Vehicle Tire and Wheel Guarantee on 12/03/14 from [redacted] Chevrolet Cadillac on his 2014 Cadillac ELR. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard.On 03/28/16, a technician from [redacted] Cadillac...
initiated a claim with IAS on behalf of Mr. [redacted] for damages to his vehicle – a nail in the sidewall of the right front tire. [redacted] Cadillac is not the dealership that sold this Contract to Mr. [redacted]. Specific claim information regarding the damages and repairs were obtained from the technician, and the claim procedures were explained. The technician told IAS the work had not been completed yet.Later that same day, we received a final signed invoice for the repairs. The repairs were actually completed on 03/15/16 according to the invoice from the dealership. Since the repairs had been completed prior to the claim being initiated with IAS, the claim was denied.The Contract specifically states “You must receive prior authorization from the claims center before any repairs or replacement is begun.” This statement or one very similar appears eight (8) different times throughout the Contract.The reason we require pre-authorization from the repair technician is so 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 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 not.In addition, the Contract states "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."This was not Mr. [redacted]’s first claim under this Contract. Three previous claims have been paid in which pre-authorization was received before repairs were completed. He should be familiar with the terms and conditions of his Contract as ultimately he is responsible for ensuring they are met.We regret Mr. [redacted] is not satisfied with our claims decision however, his claim remains denied as repairs were completed prior to receiving pre-authorization which is a condition of this Contract.
We are in receipt of Ms. [redacted] rejection of our reply to her complaint. She purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum, not an insurance policy as she refers to in her complaints. The front of her GAP Contract (see attached) states: “WARNING: 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 back page of her GAP Contract states: The Contract states “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of the Date of Loss. This amount shall not include any and all…future interest…finance charges, late charges, Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…” Attached please find a copy of Ms. [redacted] payment history from [redacted] According to the finance agreement she signed, she financed $19,663.03. The lienholder added a $199 finance fee to the beginning of the loan balance. The first line shows the amount she financed and the second line shows the additional $199 added to her loan for finance fees. In addition, the payment history shows the two extensions which were not covered in the GAP claim. As previously stated in our prior response, per the terms and conditions of the GAP Contract, “Actual Cash Value means the retail value of the Covered Collateral on the Date of Loss, prior to its physical damage or theft, as determined by the Primary Insurance carrier (including tax, title and license), less the Primary Insurance deductible amount, where permitted by law. (NOTE: This GAP Waiver Addendum does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage.)” According to the total loss evaluation received from [redacted] there was a conditional adjustment of $70 for minor damage to the exterior trim of the vehicle. Therefore, this deduction was also included in the GAP claim calculations. Attached please find a copy of the insurance company’s total loss evaluation. The first line entry on page 3 shows a $70 deduction for minor damage to the exterior trim. If Ms. [redacted] disputes this deduction, she would need to contact [redacted]. Should they change their position and remove the deduction, we would need revised total loss documents as well as proof of any supplemental insurance checks they issue for changes. The attached documentation supports our claim handling. Again, any remaining balance on her loan is attributable to the finance charge added to the loan after its inception, the conditional adjustment, the two extensions, any late charges that have been added to the loan since the date of loss, and any additional interest added to the loan since the date of loss. Ms. [redacted] remains responsible for any of these fees as they are not covered by the GAP Contract. Tell us why here...
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:IAS does not have its fact straight. They fail to mention they were unavailable at the time of the accident. They fail to acknowledge that I was stranded and had to take action on my own including scheduling a repair at my dealer. They fail to acknowledge that Porsche of North America picked up the bulk of cost of this incident by flat bedding my car to Albuquerque for $1500. They fail to acknowledge that the dealer remained open late at night to service my car and I committed to the repair on the same date that they were still unavailable for consultation. Yes, the repair took a few days extra since the tire had to be ordered. IAS feels that at that point I should have contacted them for approval. Approval for what? The tire was blown. Pictures and the report from Porsche Albuquerque state that. All the forms I filled out state that. The damage is irrefutable. IAS is standing on their position that the contract says claims need prior authorization when in fact they were unavailable at the time of the incident. Was I supposed to wait 300 miles from home for the next day to get their "approval"? They do not provide a full warranty service with sufficient recourse, e.g., a hotline, which is part and parcel to any responsible insurance company. Then they choose to fall back on the "prior approval" line. They dispute reality and squirm out by denying the claim. A respectable company would never do so.I fully deny their one-sided account of this incident and do not accept their response. They must step up to the plate and do the right thing.
Regards,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: While I was meeting with the manager at the store he was on the phone with IAS. He repeated all the steps needed as she advised and they were completed at her direction. MY next call to IAS regarding the claim was answered by the IAS representative, "all we need now is a copy of invoice" to which I replied "you already have it, but I';; fax another."Also what about the IAS claim that this was the second time this tire has had a claim? That is completely untrue.
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms. [redacted] purchased an Advanced Windshield Protection Windshield Repair or Replacement Limited Warranty on 02/13/10 from Westside Lexus for her 2010 Lexus RX350. 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 2/3/15 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 30 days of the damages occurring. Therefore, her claim was being denied.Ms. [redacted] then stated "Well, it could have been 30 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 30 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 2/3/15 -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.
Colin [redacted] purchased a Millennium Automotive Protection Plan from Euro Motors on 08/05/13. It is our understanding that Ms. [redacted] is Mr. [redacted]'s spouse.Ms. [redacted] initiated a claim with IAS on 11/07/14 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.e. questionnaire, 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 11/07/14 (questionnaire), 03/10/15 (photographs), and on 03/17/15 (estimate of repairs).Upon receipt of the required information indicated above, the claim was reviewed and authorized on 03/17/15 for $250 for the amount of repairs based on the estimate she provided.Ms. [redacted] states she called IAS over 30 times and sent over 20 e-mails. However, we do not have a record of that much activity from her. We spoke to her on 11/7/14 (twice), 11/10/14, 02/10/15, 03/10/15, 03/11/15 and on 03/16/15 (five times). We received e-mails from her on 02/10/15, 03/03/15, and on 03/10/15. 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. [redacted] 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. [redacted] is requesting compensation of $1,000 for her inconvenience and time while filing her claim. The Protection Plan does not provide this type of coverage.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I like how this company brings up claims for a vehicle I had over 7 years ago and completely fail to mention that I have a NEW policy with them now for a completely different vehicle. These tire and wheel warranties are all scams as far as I'm concerned and their claims process is very archaic. These type of companies will be out of business as current technology and new processes will put them out of business with these outdated methods.
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum (Contract) for her 2013 Ford Escape. She refers to the Contract as being gap insurance. Her Contract states: “Warning: This Contract is not an insurance policy and 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. The Contract does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage. The insurance company deducted $400 from Ms. [redacted] total loss settlement for the condition of the glass on the vehicle. Therefore, this deduction was also considered in the GAP claim calculations. The terms and conditions of the Contract state: “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of Date of Loss. This amount shall not include any…future interest…Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…or any proceeds which may be recovered by canceling any insurance coverages, service contracts and/or warranties, credit life, accidental and health insurance or other cancelable items.” Ms. [redacted] purchased an extended service contract and an etch warranty when she purchased her vehicle. The refunds are actually paid to the lienholder by another entity so are deducted from the claim benefits. An extension was found on the payment history from her lienholder. Since extensions are not covered under this Contract, a deduction was included in our claim figures. Ms. [redacted] was required to make payments according to the terms of the finance agreement she signed when purchasing this vehicle. If she was not fulfilling her 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 her credit could have been affected. Ms. [redacted] would be responsible for any fees added to the loan after its inception date and she would need to discuss this matter with her lienholder if she feels her credit has been affected as IAS does not report to credit bureaus. A payment for $150.89 was issued to her lienholder for the GAP deficiency owed on 03/27/17. Since a GAP deficiency was paid out under this Contract, Ms. [redacted] is not entitled to a refund of the premium she paid for the GAP Contract. Any remaining balance on Ms. [redacted]’s loan is attributable to the condition adjustment ($400), the extension found on the payment history ($529.36), any additional interest that has accrued since the date of this loss (5.79%), and any late fees being charged since the date of loss. In the event Ms. [redacted] can’t locate her GAP Contract, we will e-mail her a copy of it after responding to her concerns. Tell us why here...
On 04/23/08, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the left rear wheel for curb damage. The wheel was repaired. Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $150.00 on 06/05/08.On 05/07/08, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the left front tire. The tire was replaced. Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $357.58 on 05/30/08.On 05/28/09, [redacted] from Southwest Infiniti initiated a claim (#[redacted]) for the customer for damages to the right rear tire. The tire was repaired. Payment was issued to Southwest Infiniti for $37.52 on 05/29/09.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
the he proof is there in the documentation. It is clear. I believe this will hold up in a court of law or public opinion. It is clear it was a pothole. I was not the original driver. I didn't know.
I will continue to reject IAS responses until they make good on what they sold me.
I want ant to do everything in my power to alert other consumers about the lack of business ethics. The work order clearly stated it was from an apparent pothole.
I have no intentions to lie nor change my story as the company assumes. I have not changed my story. Only going by the paperwork I was given.
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms.
[redacted] purchased a Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract on her
vehicle on April 14, 2014. One of the
coverages under the Contract is 24-Hour Toll-Free Assistance which is provided
by an independent entity.The
Contract states service will be provided for covered services up...
to $50 for
help in changing an inflated spare or up to $50 for towing your vehicle to the
closest service station.Ms.
[redacted] states in her complaint that she contacted Road Side Assistance and
they could not provide any assistance to her because that interstate was too
busy to provide service on. We contacted
Road Side Assistance (who records all telephone calls) and asked them to review
the call. The results of their review
showed that it was explained to Ms. [redacted] that they called several providers
to go out and change her tire but due to safety concerns, they would not change
the tire on the Interstate. The
providers advised they would have to tow the vehicle off the interstate and
then change the tire however, there would be some additional charges that would
not be covered under her Contract. Ms.
[redacted] advised Road Side Assistance that she would not pay any additional
charges, and would just contact IAS.Ms.
[redacted] chose not to accept assistance from Road Side Assistance because there
would be additional charges not covered under the Contract. That was a choice she made.We
regret she was not satisfied with the outcome of her call with Road Side
Assistance.Ms.
[redacted] commented that she would like a full refund on this Contract. Per the terms and conditions of her Contract,
she can cancel the Contract at any time by surrendering it to the issuing
dealer along with a written request to cancel. “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.”
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 4,500 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]
Mr. [redacted] states in his latest comments that a technician from Belle Tire contacted IAS and received pre-approval for his repairs. However, our records do not indicate IAS ever received a call from Belle Tire for this claim for this damage. Since all calls are recorded in our Claim Department, we can confirm whether a call was received or not. We would need to know the telephone number the call was made from as well as the date and approximate time that the technician contacted IAS. The claim process is very simple and the claim procedures were explained to Mr. [redacted] during all of his claims. Unfortunately, if the procedures are not followed then the claim is denied. Procedures are in place for a reason. It is unclear as to why Mr. [redacted] is upset his appeal was heard prior to a Friday. Typically, all appeals are reviewed on Fridays however, that week there was time to review some appeals before that day. That would be considered a good thing to most customers. As stated previously, this was not Mr. [redacted]’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. Thanks. [redacted]
[redacted] Special Claims Analyst
Mr. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum (Contract) from [redacted] Chevrolet providing GAP coverage in connection with the purchase and financing of a 2013 Chevrolet Malibu on July 31, 2013. A claim was initiated on Mr. [redacted]’s behalf on 10/26/16 for a date of loss of...
07/27/16. The required claim information was requested from Mr. [redacted] in writing on 10/27/16, 11/22/16, and on 12/14/16. The required information was also requested from Mr. [redacted] verbally on 12/12/16 and 12/22/16. After receiving Mr. [redacted]’s Revdex.com complaint, we contacted the insurance company directly on 12/22/16, in an attempt to assist the customer in obtaining the required claim documentation. We had to contact the insurance company again on 12/29/16 to request the required information a second time. Later that same day, we received an e-mail from the insurance adjuster with the missing documentation. The claim was then sent for review and processing. The Contract states: The Contract does not agree to cover any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement. According to the total loss evaluation received from the insurance company, there was a condition adjustment of $729 for stains to the carpets and damage to the front bumper. This adjustment was also deducted in the GAP calculations. “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of Date of Loss. This amount shall not include…any proceeds which may be recovered by canceling any insurance coverages, service contracts and/or warranties…” The service contract refund is actually paid to the lienholder by another entity so is deducted from the claim benefits. Our specific GAP Benefit Calculations were: Gross Unpaid Balance (on dol) = $12,967.77 Less Service Contract Refund = $ 1,419.44 Less Condition Adjustments = $ 729.00 Less ACV (insurance checks) = ...⇄ $10,970.69 GAP BENEFITS = $ (- 151.36) There were no GAP benefits available for Mr. [redacted] therefore, his claim was denied on December 30, 2016. A denial letter was mailed to the customer. We believe we have processed the claim according to the language of the waiver. Tell us why here...
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] [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]
**. [redacted] purchased a Tire & Wheel Road Hazard Service Contract for New and Used Vehicles on 04/10/12 from Chevrolet Cadillac of Turnersvillle on his 2008 Cadillac Escalade. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard.**. [redacted] initiated a claim...
with IAS on 7/15/15 for damages to his tire (left front) and wheels (left front, left rear and right front) due to hitting apothole(s). We requested and received photographs of the damaged areas for our review.Based on our review of the damages, it appeared the majority of the damages were a result of curb damage which is not covered under this contract. We dispatched an independent appraiser to go to the repair facility and inspect the damages and provide us with a report of same.According to the independent appraiser, (1) the left front tire had a pinch cut from a side scrape – impact was not showing cords and still held air, (2) the left front wheel’s outer lip was broken off – consistent with curb damage and still held air, (3) the right front tire had no damage, (4) the right front wheel’souter lip was severely bent and folded over from a pot hole impact, (5) the left rear tire had no damage, (6) the left rear outer wheel lip was visibly cracked – consistent with curb damage and still held air, (7) the right rear tire had no damage, and the (8) the right rear wheel had curb rash and still held air.Note: In February 2015, **. [redacted] made a claim for damages to the right front tire resulting from curb damages. Because curb damage is not covered under his contract his claim was denied. During the current claim we are discussing in this complaint, we requested proof from **. [redacted] showing that the damage from the February 2015 claim had been replaced. He informed us that he bought a tire with cash from a neighborhood shop and could not provide a receipt for same. Since this damage was previously denied under a previous claim, it is not eligible for consideration in future claims untilwe are provided with proof of its replacement.The contract states “Wheels are eligible for replacement only if the damages from a ROAD HAZARD will not allow the tire to seal or the wheel is unsafe for use.”The contract also states cosmetic damage, sidewall damage, and damage caused by impact with a curb are non-covered damages.The only damaged area falling within the scope of **. [redacted]’ contract was the damage to the right front wheel. Therefore, his claim was authorized for thereplacement of the right front wheel. Partial payment of these repairs was made on 7/27/15 for $550.00, and an additional payment was issued today for $26.50 after the final invoice was received.**. [redacted] will need to provide copies of any invoices/receipts for the damaged areas not covered under his claims in order for any future damage to these same areas to be considered.We regret **. [redacted] is not satisfied with our claim decision. However, we feel we have paid for the damages covered under this contract.
We are in receipt of Ms. [redacted] complaint. Ms. [redacted] lienholder, [redacted], initiated a claim for possible GAP benefits on her behalf on 01/26/17. IAS mailed letters to both Ms. [redacted] and [redacted] on 1/30/17, 3/23/17 and again on 5/21/17 requesting the required information...
needed in order to process her claim for GAP benefits. In addition, IAS also e-mailed [redacted] on 2/91/7 and verbally spoke with them on 5/261/7 again requesting the missing information. IAS also spoke to Ms. [redacted] on 2/13/17, 3/7/17 and on 4/6/17 again requesting the missing information. To date, IAS has not been provided with the required information to process this claim. IAS needs a complete copy of the GAP Vehicle Protection Debt Relief Waiver Addendum (Contract) sold to Ms. [redacted] Until this GAP Contract is received, we are unable to process her claim for GAP benefits. Ms. [redacted] stated in her complaint letter that IAS contacted her four days after the accident and advised her ‘we would take care of everything.’ IAS never called Ms. [redacted] so it is now known who she would have spoken to four days after the loss. Ms. [redacted] also states she called IAS twelve times however, she has only called IAS three times. All phone calls are recorded. In addition, IAS has only received two faxes that were not sent from [redacted]. Therefore, if Ms. [redacted] faxed everything five times at least three of those faxes were not received by IAS. The customer refers in her complaint letter as having purchased GAP insurance. As indicated on the front page of Ms. [redacted] Contract, “I understand that this Debt Relief Waiver Addendum is not an offer of insurance coverage.” The GAP Contract does not agree to cover delinquent payments or extensions. According to the payment history received from [redacted] there was one (1) extension. Ms. [redacted] would remain responsible for this extension. Ms. [redacted] was required to make payments according to the terms and conditions of the finance agreement she signed when purchasing this vehicle. If Ms. [redacted] has not been fulfilling her obligation under the finance agreement by continuing to make monthly payments after the vehicle was deemed a total loss, additional interest or additional late charges could have been added to the loan balance and her credit could have been affected. Ms. [redacted] would be responsible for any fees added to the loan after its inception date and she would need to discuss this matter with [redacted] if she feels her credit has been affected as IAS does not report to credit bureaus. Upon receipt of the GAP Contract Ms. [redacted] purchased, we will be able to process her claim. Tell us why here...
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, etc... I NEVER received ANY attn. of 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], **
Complaint: [redacted]
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 communication.2. The company representative/supervisor--email: [redacted]@iasdirect.com Admitted the following:A. the 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. B. The 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 5-6 requests for supervisor.3. The 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. 4. The company's staff is rude, does not know their own policies and constantly puts blame on the client vs. incompetent staff. In closing, it would have been much easier to get this paltry $300 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 3-4 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. [redacted], **
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms. [redacted] purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum from Sunrise Buick GMC providing GAP coverage in connection with the purchase and financing of a 2011 Buick Lacrosse on 09/21/14. Ms. [redacted] initiated her claim on 1/18/17 and the claim was concluded on 2/27/17. 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. Per the terms and conditions of the GAP Contract, “Actual Cash Value means the retail value of the Covered Collateral on the Date of Loss, prior to its physical damage or theft, as determined by the Primary Insurance carrier (including tax, title and license), less the Primary Insurance deductible amount, where permitted by law. (NOTE: This GAP Waiver Addendum does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage.)” According to the total loss evaluation received from [redacted] there was a conditional adjustment of $70 for minor damage to the exterior trim of the vehicle. Therefore, this deduction was also included in the GAP claim calculations. The Contract states “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of the Date of Loss. This amount shall not include any and all…future interest…finance charges, late charges, Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…” According to the payment history IAS received from her lienholder[redacted] the lienholder added $199.00 for finance fees to the beginning loan balance. In addition, her payment history included two extensions. Since the GAP Contract does not cover finance charges and extensions those fees were included in our claim calculations. The Contract also states “In the event of a request for waiver, You must provide…to the GAP Administrator….the following documentation before any waiver under this Addendum can be processed…” Due to privacy laws, IAS is unable to obtain her personal information from insurance companies, lienholders, etc. Therefore, the customer is responsible for obtaining and providing the required claim documents to IAS for their claim. The balance of this loan on the date of loss was $13,672.84, less the insurance check $12,950.46, less the conditional adjustment $70, less the finance charge $199, less the 2 extensions $626.76, equals (- $173.38). Therefore, there was not a GAP deficiency to be paid out under the terms of her GAP Contract. The Cancellation Provisions of her Contract state “If a cancellation is requested after 30 days You will receive a refund/credit of the GAP Waiver Addendum fee calculated in accordance with the Pro-rata refund (or by the refund method as required in Your state) less a $25 cancellation fee.” Ms. [redacted] needs to contact the selling dealership to request and sign the appropriate cancellation request. Any pro-rata refund due on the $800 cost of the Contract would be payable to the lienholder unless she provides the dealership with proof that her loan has been paid in full. We regret Ms. [redacted] is not satisfied with the prompt handling of her claim. There was no GAP deficiency to be paid out under this Contract therefore, her claim was denied. Any remaining balance on her loan is attributable to the finance charge added to the loan after its inception, the conditional adjustment, the two extensions, any late charges that have been added to the loan since the date of loss, and any additional interest added to the loan since the date of loss. Ms. [redacted] remains responsible for any of these fees as they are not covered by the GAP Contract. Tell us why here...
Mr. [redacted] purchased a R.O.A.D. InTire Vehicle Tire and Wheel Guarantee on 12/03/14 from [redacted] Chevrolet Cadillac on his 2014 Cadillac ELR. The tire and wheel guarantee is designed to cover damages resulting from a road hazard.On 03/28/16, a technician from [redacted] Cadillac...
initiated a claim with IAS on behalf of Mr. [redacted] for damages to his vehicle – a nail in the sidewall of the right front tire. [redacted] Cadillac is not the dealership that sold this Contract to Mr. [redacted]. Specific claim information regarding the damages and repairs were obtained from the technician, and the claim procedures were explained. The technician told IAS the work had not been completed yet.Later that same day, we received a final signed invoice for the repairs. The repairs were actually completed on 03/15/16 according to the invoice from the dealership. Since the repairs had been completed prior to the claim being initiated with IAS, the claim was denied.The Contract specifically states “You must receive prior authorization from the claims center before any repairs or replacement is begun.” This statement or one very similar appears eight (8) different times throughout the Contract.The reason we require pre-authorization from the repair technician is so 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 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 not.In addition, the Contract states "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."This was not Mr. [redacted]’s first claim under this Contract. Three previous claims have been paid in which pre-authorization was received before repairs were completed. He should be familiar with the terms and conditions of his Contract as ultimately he is responsible for ensuring they are met.We regret Mr. [redacted] is not satisfied with our claims decision however, his claim remains denied as repairs were completed prior to receiving pre-authorization which is a condition of this Contract.
We are in receipt of Ms. [redacted] rejection of our reply to her complaint. She purchased a GAP I Gap Waiver Addendum, not an insurance policy as she refers to in her complaints. The front of her GAP Contract (see attached) states: “WARNING: 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 back page of her GAP Contract states: The Contract states “Financing Contract Balance means the amount owed by You to pay off the outstanding Financial Agreement account as of the Date of Loss. This amount shall not include any and all…future interest…finance charges, late charges, Delinquent Payments, deferred payments…” Attached please find a copy of Ms. [redacted] payment history from [redacted] According to the finance agreement she signed, she financed $19,663.03. The lienholder added a $199 finance fee to the beginning of the loan balance. The first line shows the amount she financed and the second line shows the additional $199 added to her loan for finance fees. In addition, the payment history shows the two extensions which were not covered in the GAP claim. As previously stated in our prior response, per the terms and conditions of the GAP Contract, “Actual Cash Value means the retail value of the Covered Collateral on the Date of Loss, prior to its physical damage or theft, as determined by the Primary Insurance carrier (including tax, title and license), less the Primary Insurance deductible amount, where permitted by law. (NOTE: This GAP Waiver Addendum does not provide coverage for any amounts deducted from the insurer’s settlement due to wear and tear, prior damage, excess mileage, salvage, towing or storage.)” According to the total loss evaluation received from [redacted] there was a conditional adjustment of $70 for minor damage to the exterior trim of the vehicle. Therefore, this deduction was also included in the GAP claim calculations. Attached please find a copy of the insurance company’s total loss evaluation. The first line entry on page 3 shows a $70 deduction for minor damage to the exterior trim. If Ms. [redacted] disputes this deduction, she would need to contact [redacted]. Should they change their position and remove the deduction, we would need revised total loss documents as well as proof of any supplemental insurance checks they issue for changes. The attached documentation supports our claim handling. Again, any remaining balance on her loan is attributable to the finance charge added to the loan after its inception, the conditional adjustment, the two extensions, any late charges that have been added to the loan since the date of loss, and any additional interest added to the loan since the date of loss. Ms. [redacted] remains responsible for any of these fees as they are not covered by the GAP Contract. Tell us why here...
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:IAS does not have its fact straight. They fail to mention they were unavailable at the time of the accident. They fail to acknowledge that I was stranded and had to take action on my own including scheduling a repair at my dealer. They fail to acknowledge that Porsche of North America picked up the bulk of cost of this incident by flat bedding my car to Albuquerque for $1500. They fail to acknowledge that the dealer remained open late at night to service my car and I committed to the repair on the same date that they were still unavailable for consultation. Yes, the repair took a few days extra since the tire had to be ordered. IAS feels that at that point I should have contacted them for approval. Approval for what? The tire was blown. Pictures and the report from Porsche Albuquerque state that. All the forms I filled out state that. The damage is irrefutable. IAS is standing on their position that the contract says claims need prior authorization when in fact they were unavailable at the time of the incident. Was I supposed to wait 300 miles from home for the next day to get their "approval"? They do not provide a full warranty service with sufficient recourse, e.g., a hotline, which is part and parcel to any responsible insurance company. Then they choose to fall back on the "prior approval" line. They dispute reality and squirm out by denying the claim. A respectable company would never do so.I fully deny their one-sided account of this incident and do not accept their response. They must step up to the plate and do the right thing.
Regards,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: While I was meeting with the manager at the store he was on the phone with IAS. He repeated all the steps needed as she advised and they were completed at her direction. MY next call to IAS regarding the claim was answered by the IAS representative, "all we need now is a copy of invoice" to which I replied "you already have it, but I';; fax another."Also what about the IAS claim that this was the second time this tire has had a claim? That is completely untrue.
Regards,
[redacted]
Ms. [redacted] purchased an Advanced Windshield Protection Windshield Repair or Replacement Limited Warranty on 02/13/10 from Westside Lexus for her 2010 Lexus RX350. 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 2/3/15 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 30 days of the damages occurring. Therefore, her claim was being denied.Ms. [redacted] then stated "Well, it could have been 30 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 30 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 2/3/15 -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.
Colin [redacted] purchased a Millennium Automotive Protection Plan from Euro Motors on 08/05/13. It is our understanding that Ms. [redacted] is Mr. [redacted]'s spouse.Ms. [redacted] initiated a claim with IAS on 11/07/14 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.e. questionnaire, 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 11/07/14 (questionnaire), 03/10/15 (photographs), and on 03/17/15 (estimate of repairs).Upon receipt of the required information indicated above, the claim was reviewed and authorized on 03/17/15 for $250 for the amount of repairs based on the estimate she provided.Ms. [redacted] states she called IAS over 30 times and sent over 20 e-mails. However, we do not have a record of that much activity from her. We spoke to her on 11/7/14 (twice), 11/10/14, 02/10/15, 03/10/15, 03/11/15 and on 03/16/15 (five times). We received e-mails from her on 02/10/15, 03/03/15, and on 03/10/15. 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. [redacted] 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. [redacted] is requesting compensation of $1,000 for her inconvenience and time while filing her claim. The Protection Plan does not provide this type of coverage.