Plaza Restaurant

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because this has not been resolved yet. I am waiting to hear back from them as they are working towards a resolution we discussed. I will be happy to accept their response and close this complaint as resolved when it is in fact resolved completely.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

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

We are in receipt of the consumer’s correspondence.  A full review of the file has been completed.  This customer indicated on his initial claim submission form he was experiencing corrosion damage on his dash area due to a chemical that leaked from an air freshener he had in his...

vehicle.  Unfortunately, this type of damage is not covered under warranty and we had no choice but to deny the claim. The customer later advised he had cracking of the dash.  A technician will be sent out directly to this customer’s home to assess this damage and repair any covered damage under his warranty.  Certainly we will assist in this instance if there is any way possible for us to do so. Sincerely, Claims Manager

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

ECP Incorporated appreciates the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted] concerns.  We aim for complete customer satisfaction in all of our customer interactions, and regret that Mr. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the outcome of his claim.  Mr. [redacted] purchased ECP products designed to...

protect against corrosion perforation when he purchased a new vehicle in January of 2012.   The corrosion perforation warranty is effective for ten years, and is still in force. ECP evaluated information that Mr. [redacted] submitted with his claim, including photos of the corrosion damage and an estimate from a repair facility.  Upon review of the provided claim information we determined the rust damage on the vehicle was a surface rust condition.  This type of damage is specifically excluded under the terms of the warranty coverage.    We were thorough in our claims process to ensure that we could honor Mr. [redacted] claim if it was at all possible to do so.  Since the current damage was not rust perforation, regrettably had no alternative but to deny the claim.  We received a call from Mr. [redacted] regarding his concern with our decision to deny his claim.  At that point we advised we will certainly give him the opportunity to dispute the denial decision if he feels the damage was in fact within the terms of the warranty.  We requested the customer please provide proof of rust perforation and suggested he do so by probing the area with a paperclip and sending us a photo showing the paperclip through the sheet metal.   In addition, we advised the dealership what needed to be done to substantiate this rust damage.   Our warranties are backed by an insurance company that requires full compliance of the terms and conditions.  We must be able to substantiate damage prior to authorizing a claim.   To date, we have not received this proof of rust perforation.  We requested this information be submitted to our office within 30 days or the claim would be closed.  Probing the sheet metal would not invalidate the warranty coverage as this is what we were advising needed to be done to confirm the rust perforation damage.   At this time we are requesting this proof of rust perforation to further evaluate the claim.  If this information is not received within the next 30 days the claim file will be closed.  We are happy to assist further in this instance.  Please advise if there are any other questions or concerns we can address.  Sincerely,  Liz [redacted] Claims Manager

We are in receipt of the complaint your office received regarding the claim denial under warranty number PEF [redacted].   I have pulled this file and conducted a thorough review.  According to the information and documents received, this claim was submitted to our office on...

July 22, 2017.  The customer specifically indicated the damage on the vehicle was initially identified in September of 2015.   Below please find the Vehicle Owner Requirements included in the warranty the customer received:   CUSTOMER’S DUTY: Failure of the customer to regularly inspect the vehicle in order to be able to file a claim within sixty (60) days following the occurrence of covered damage will relieve manufacturer of all legal responsibilities under this warranty.   Please note the warranty advises all damage must be reported within 60 days of occurrence.  Since this damage was not reported within the specified timeline, we the manufacturer under this warranty are relieved of any legal responsibility to remit payment or authorize repairs for this claim.    Additionally, the claim information submitted further substantiates the damage is in fact old.  Our warranties are backed by an insurance company who has set forth certain terms/conditions that must be adhered to.  Since the damage exceeds the terms of the warranty, we cannot provide compensation for this claim.   In closing, the damage on this vehicle was not reported within the 60 day time period required under the warranty and we cannot offer any compensation for repair on this claim.  We regret the consumer is unhappy with our decision but we remain confident that it is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the warranty.   We appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to this claim denial.  If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this claim, do not hesitate in contacting us at any time.   Respectfully Yours,   Liz [redacted] Claims Manager