Royal Administration Services, Inc.

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from
** *** *** (the "Vendor") on 2/10/ Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) does not now or at any time participate in the sale of these programs As such, we cannot comment on any communication that occurred between the Complainant and the Vendor As stated in the Contract, Royal serves as the administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions The Contract is “part specific” in that it lists all components and parts which will be considered for coverage in the event of a mechanical breakdown On Friday, 6/24/at or about 12:30pmET a representative of *** ***, the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) contacted our office with regard to the replacement of the air conditioning compressor and condenser The RF stated the compressor would not turn on and there was leak coming from the condenser As both items are listed for coverage, a claim was initiated. In an effort to be fair and equitable to all customers, claims are reviewed for adjudication in the order in which they are received Due to a high volume of claims and this having been received on a Friday afternoon, it was not reviewed until the following Monday, 6/27/ Upon review it was determined an independent third party inspector would be required to verify the failures and determine the cause of same The RF was notified at or about 10:00amET on the 27th that an inspector would be out and, would call approximately one (1) hour before arrival The inspector contacted the RF at or about 12:00pm local time on the 27th with the expectation he would be inspecting the vehicle that afternoon The RF advised the vehicle was not at the RF resulting in a delay until the following Thursday, 6/30/when, as the Complainant referenced in her statement of the problem, that the vehicle would be returned to the RF The inspection was completed on 6/30/and the report and associated photographs were submitted that evening for review the following day, Friday, 7/1/ Upon initial review, the assigned adjuster determined the results needed to be escalated to the Claims Manager which unfortunately delayed the decision to the following business day, Tuesday, July 5th. The findings of the inspector and supported by the photographs indicate the leak coming from the condenser is the result of “physical damage” It is apparent in the photographs that an area of the condenser is “pushed in” and is damp from the leaking refrigerant As previously stated, coverage is provided for a mechanical breakdown Physical damage regardless of the cause is excluded from coverage Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which begins: “ Any physical damage, regardless of damaged components and/or cause of damage“ As a result, the request for coverage of the condenser was properly denied. The Complainant referenced the cost approved for the compressor Please refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES, item 1, BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS which includes information on parts: “We will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs to repair or replace any Breakdown of a part listed in the Plan Coverage Section as determined by the Administrator using standard and common industry practices COVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING UPON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINISTRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.” As part of the adjudication process, the Adjuster is required to verify the part costs, as well as, labor time and rate In this instance, the RF requested a cost of $for the compressor which was readily available at a local aftermarket supplier for a cost of $ The aftermarket part meets the manufacturer’s specifications for the Complainant’s vehicle, was available locally and carries a warranty As such, the approval was based on this new part We understand the Complainant’s dissatisfaction with regard to the time involved and the final approval of the claim It is not Royal’s intent to delay or cause further frustration to any customer In this instance some of the delay was the result of the vehicle not being available for inspection until 6/30/ Royal does take responsibility for the delay from 7/1, when the inspection results were received until the next business day of Tuesday, July 5th The Complainant contacted our office to discuss the rental benefit At this time, her account has been noted to reimburse the maximum stated in the Contract of $in the event her costs were equal to or more than that amount If she has not already done so, the Complainant should submit the final rental receipt to receive that reimbursement She may send this by fax to *** or by email to [email protected] Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage
plan (the "Contract") from *** *** (the "Vendor") on 11/14/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 143, As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. On 4/21/at or about 2:30pmET our office received a call from *** of *** *** *** *** ***, the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF") who initially stated the vehicle had a "blown cylinder head" During further conversation *** stated the "car overheated and the cylinder head is warped now" When asked specifically if the vehicle had overheated she replied "Yes” and continued with the statement that "the radiator cracked on him" The claim was started for the Cylinder Head and Head gasket set The radiator is not listed for coverage. The claim was subsequently reviewed by the Technical Lead Adjuster who contacted the RF at or about 3:25pmET that same day During that conversation it was communicated by the RF that the radiator failed causing the overheating Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, items and which state the following: "Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, vandalism, riot, explosion, lightning, earthquake, overheating, freezing ..." "Any repair or replacement of a covered component when the Breakdown is caused by the Breakdown of a non-covered component, and any ..." The claim was properly denied due to the cause of the cylinder head failure being that of an overheating condition AND that condition was caused by the failure of the radiator, a non-covered component. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from *** *** (the "Vendor") on 11/14/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 143,As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsOn 4/21/at or about 2:30pmET our office received a call from *** of *** *** *** *** ***, the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF") who initially stated the vehicle had a "blown cylinder head"During further conversation *** stated the "car overheated and the cylinder head is warped now"When asked specifically if the vehicle had overheated she replied "Yes” and continued with the statement that "the radiator cracked on him"The claim was started for the Cylinder Head and Head gasket setThe radiator is not listed for coverageThe claim was subsequently reviewed by the Technical Lead Adjuster who contacted the RF at or about 3:25pmET that same dayDuring that conversation it was communicated by the RF that the radiator failed causing the overheatingPlease refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, items and which state the following: "Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, vandalism, riot, explosion, lightning, earthquake, overheating, freezing ..." "Any repair or replacement of a covered component when the Breakdown is caused by the Breakdown of a non-covered component, and any ..."The claim was properly denied due to the cause of the cylinder head failure being that of an overheating condition AND that condition was caused by the failure of the radiator, a non-covered componentOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage
plan (the "Contract") from *** *** (the "Vendor") on 6/29/ As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. On 3/29/at or about 3:15pmET our office received a call from *** of *** *** ***, the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF") who advised there had been noise in the engine for which the RF determined a timing chain kit was needed A claim was initiated Upon review, the assigned Claims Adjuster determined the maintenance records would be needed before proceeding with the adjudication On that same date, a call was placed and a message left for the Contract Holder requesting these records The Complainant (wife of Contract Holder) returned the call advising these records were not available as the oil changes were generally done by the Contract Holder The Complainant was referred to the Contract section which describes the Contract Holder responsibilities with regard to maintaining the vehicle. On 3/30/two (2) oil change records were received with information that the oil change which would have been done between the two submitted was that done by the Contract Holder so no record was available Please note, that in the event maintenance such as oil changes are done by a Contract Holder, the Contract directs a log should be maintained which would include date, mileage and receipts for the oil and oil filter Once the records were received, the adjudication process continued. The next step was for the Complainant to authorize certain tests and the removal of the timing cover Once that was completed THEN an independent inspector would be dispatched to examine the vehicle. On Tuesday, 4//5/at or about 11:45amET, the RF contacted our office to advise the vehicle was ready for an inspection The inspection was promptly ordered We do apologize for the delay in inspecting the vehicle Due to the location of the RF and previous scheduling the inspection company advised Royal the earliest the inspection would be done was Friday, 4/8/which was outside the standard timeframe of 24-hours. The inspection was conducted on 4/8/at 1:15pmPST His report was submitted after Royal had closed and was therefore reviewed the first business day following the inspection, Monday, 4/11/16. The results of the inspection found a broken gasket on the right chain tensioner This failure of the gasket caused insufficient chain tension resulting in the engine noise A review of the Contract indicates that seals and gaskets are "covered only if required in conjunction with a Covered Repair." Given that the only failure found was to the gasket which, alone, is not covered, the claim was properly denied. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law To Whom It May Concern:This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from *** *** (the "Vendor") on 6/29/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsOn 3/29/at or about 3:15pmET our office received a call from *** of *** *** ***, the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF") who advised there had been noise in the engine for which the RF determined a timing chain kit was neededA claim was initiatedUpon review, the assigned Claims Adjuster determined the maintenance records would be needed before proceeding with the adjudicationOn that same date, a call was placed and a message left for the Contract Holder requesting these recordsThe Complainant (wife of Contract Holder) returned the call advising these records were not available as the oil changes were generally done by the Contract HolderThe Complainant was referred to the Contract section which describes the Contract Holder responsibilities with regard to maintaining the vehicleOn 3/30/two (2) oil change records were received with information that the oil change which would have been done between the two submitted was that done by the Contract Holder so no record was availablePlease note, that in the event maintenance such as oil changes are done by a Contract Holder, the Contract directs a log should be maintained which would include date, mileage and receipts for the oil and oil filterOnce the records were received, the adjudication process continuedThe next step was for the Complainant to authorize certain tests and the removal of the timing coverOnce that was completed THEN an independent inspector would be dispatched to examine the vehicleOn Tuesday, 4//5/at or about 11:45amET, the RF contacted our office to advise the vehicle was ready for an inspectionThe inspection was promptly orderedWe do apologize for the delay in inspecting the vehicleDue to the location of the RF and previous scheduling the inspection company advised Royal the earliest the inspection would be done was Friday, 4/8/which was outside the standard timeframe of 24-hoursThe inspection was conducted on 4/8/at 1:15pmPSTHis report was submitted after Royal had closed and was therefore reviewed the first business day following the inspection, Monday, 4/11/16.The results of the inspection found a broken gasket on the right chain tensionerThis failure of the gasket caused insufficient chain tension resulting in the engine noiseA review of the Contract indicates that seals and gaskets are "covered only if required in conjunction with a Covered Repair." Given that the only failure found was to the gasket which, alone, is not covered, the claim was properly deniedOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the
“Contract”) from *** *** (the “Vendor”) on 7/14/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions On 9/15/our office was contacted by a representative of *** *** *** (the “RF”) who advised of repairs needed to your vehicleAs is standard practice in the event of an engine claim, maintenance records are requested and if appropriate an independent inspection is conducted to verify the reported failure and determine the cause of said failure The findings of the inspector, supported by photographs, indicate at some point there was a lack of oil to the engineThis resulted in severe scoring of the crank shaft and all main bearingsPlease refer to the Contract definition of BREAKDOWN, MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN, MECHANICAL FAILURE which begins: “Refers to a failure due to defects in materials and/or workmanship of a Covered Part to perform the function for which it was designed by its manufacturer.” The Contract does not cover failures that occur due to a lack of proper lubrication and as such, the claim was properly denied Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ***.
On March *** ** *** Service Representative *** ***, made a call to Royal Administration Services, Incas required by service contract to receive prior authorization by the Administrator*** Representative was told that the Administrator had authorized a payment of $to fix covered repairsOf that $185.08, a $deductible was taken out and a final payment of $was paid to *** ** *** to cover repairs.On March 2016, I received an email from the Revdex.com that Royal Administration Services, Incamended the claim to bring the total approval to a total of less the Complainant's deductible of $leaving a balance to be paid of $207.81.That makes two deductibles ($and $before deductible)I only filed one claim and Royal Administration Services, Inc. has taken out two deductibles (one for original authorized repair and one for the amended claim)
Regards,
*** ***

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the *** *** *** coverage plan (the “Contract”)
from *** *** (the “Vendor”) on 4/28/at which time the mileage was reported as 125,The Contract carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and milesThe Contract is available for use once that criterion is met As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. On 5/29/our office received a call from *** *** *** ***; the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) at which time the mileage was reported as 126,The Validation Period had been met by day and milesAs such, for coverage to apply, the failure of the tie rod would have had to occur during that day and the miles driven to allow for coverage to be providedIf it was determined the breakdown occurred prior to those criterion the claim would be denied as “pre-existing” to the Contract validation The RF reported the Complainant had advised the check engine light was illuminated and that he was experiencing clanking and rattling over bumps and low power when driving up hillsUpon examination, the RF found two (2) codes present regarding emissions leaks and the failure of an outer tie rodPer the RF request, a claim was initiated for only the outer tie rod Using the labor time indicated in the nationally recognized flat rate manual, ALL DATA, the required time to remove and replace the outer tie rod on the Complainant’s vehicle is hoursWhen replacing this part, an alignment (commonly referred to as a “toe set”) is needed which takes hours bringing the labor time to hoursThe RF advised our office that their labor rate was $per hour so this was the amount approvedThe outer tie rod itself, using the part number provided by the RF, was priced at the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of $Tax of $was included bringing the total amount approved to $ The Contract purchased by the Complainant carries a $deductible per claimAfter deducting that amount, payment was correctly issued to the RF in the amount of $Any additional charges assessed by the RF are the responsibility of the Complainant On 6/2/the RF again contacted our office referencing the two codes previously identifiedThe RF determined the need to replace the fuel pump and exhaust clampConsidering these codes had been originally reported on 5/29/standard practice required that an independent inspection be conducted to verify the failures and determine cause of said failures The RF had lowered the fuel tank and removed the evaporator line from the tank senderUpon doing so, the plastic evaporator tube broke off entirelyHe found no other leaks but that of the plastic evaporator tubeUpon close examination and conversation with the RF it was determined that the tube had been cracked for a while and broke off entirely during the removal of the tank and evaporator line It was also determined there had been physical damage repairs made to the vehicle including the right rear quarter panel at the approximate location of the fuel tankIt is suspected that the cracked evaporator tube occurred as a result of said damage Based on the original report on 5/29/of the fail codes was only day and miles after the Validation Period expired, the evaporator tube had been cracked for “a while” and, the evidence of physical damage to the area of the fuel tank, it was concluded that the failure of the evaporator tube hence the fuel pump failure occurred before the contract was valid and/or was the result of the physical damage resulting in the denial of coverage Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, items and which read as follows: “Any physical damage, regardless of damaged components and/or cause of damageWater or air leaks, and any damage caused by water or air leaks.” “Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurs during the Validation Period.” Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Select overage plan (the
“Contract”) from ** *** *** (the “Vendor”) on 9/14/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. The Complaint’s selected Repair Facility (the “RF”) contacted our office on 3/9/at or about 3:30pm ET It was confirmed that the parts needed for the repair of the Complainant’s vehicle are listed for coverage As such, a claim was initiated for both rear drive shaft “U” Joints Upon completing the entry of all appropriate information, the RF was advised that the Contract “stipulates that all claims require pre-approval from our office before work can be performed Unapproved work will NOT be covered.” The RF was directed not to do any work on the vehicle until hearing from a Claims Adjuster. In an effort to be fair and equitable to all customers, the claims are reviewed by the Claims Adjusters in the order received Due to a high volume of claims, the Complainant’s was not reviewed until the following morning Authorization for the repair was issued on 3/10/at or about 10:50am ET.The amount authorized for the repair was determined utilizing standard adjudication practices Please refer to the Contract section GENERAL TERMS, item B which states: “FAILURE OF COVERED COMPONENTS: We will pay or reimburse You for reasonable costs to repairor replace a Covered Component in the event of a BreakdownOur amount of authorization may be based on the utilization of new parts, remanufactured parts, or replacement parts of like kind and quality.”However, it does appear the part pricing was significantly lower than that indicated by the RF A check of the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price based on the part number provided indicates a cost of $ As such, the claim has been amended bringing the approval to a total of $less the Complainant’s deductible of $leaving a balance to be paid of $207.81. Our records show the RF was issued payment on 3/11/for the original $leaving the balance of $ A check will be issued and mailed to the Complainant in this amount Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Select overage plan (the “Contract”) from ** *** *** (the “Vendor”) on 9/14/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsThe Complaint’s selected Repair Facility (the “RF”) contacted our office on 3/9/at or about 3:30pm ETIt was confirmed that the parts needed for the repair of the Complainant’s vehicle are listed for coverageAs such, a claim was initiated for both rear drive shaft “U” JointsUpon completing the entry of all appropriate information, the RF was advised that the Contract “stipulates that all claims require pre-approval from our office before work can be performedUnapproved work will NOT be covered.” The RF was directed not to do any work on the vehicle until hearing from a Claims AdjusterIn an effort to be fair and equitable to all customers, the claims are reviewed by the Claims Adjusters in the order receivedDue to a high volume of claims, the Complainant’s was not reviewed until the following morningAuthorization for the repair was issued on 3/10/at or about 10:50am ET.The amount authorized for the repair was determined utilizing standard adjudication practicesPlease refer to the Contract section GENERAL TERMS, item B which states: “FAILURE OF COVERED COMPONENTS: We will pay or reimburse You for reasonable costs to repairor replace a Covered Component in the event of a BreakdownOur amount of authorization may be based on the utilization of new parts, remanufactured parts, or replacement parts of like kind and quality.”However, it does appear the part pricing was significantly lower than that indicated by the RFA check of the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price based on the part number provided indicates a cost of $As such, the claim has been amended bringing the approval to a total of $less the Complainant’s deductible of $leaving a balance to be paid of $Our records show the RF was issued payment on 3/11/for the original $leaving the balance of $A check will be issued and mailed to the Complainant in this amountOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueThe Complainant has provided no additional or new information with regard to this matterAs previously stated, the results of the inspection found a broken gasket on the right chain tensionerThis failure of the gasket caused insufficient chain tension resulting in the engine noiseA review of the Contract indicates that seals and gaskets are "covered only if required in conjunction with a Covered Repair." Given that the only failure found was to the gasket which, alone, is not covered, the claim was properly deniedOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, reviewed all recorded calls and, examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage
plan (the “Contract”) from *** *** (the “Vendor”) on 6/18/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. On 8/4/15, at or about 11:42pm ET, our office received a call from a representative of Dr*** ***, the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (the “RF”) and a claim was initiated for the engineAs is standard practice, the RF was advised that all maintenance records would be needed to show the vehicle had been properly maintained by the Complainant The Complainant contacted our office the following day, 8/5/at or about 12:14pmEt to inquire as to the maintenance record requestDuring the course of that conversation, the Complainant stated her brother did all the oil changes and she had no recordsThe representative advised her that receipts for the purchase of oil, etccould be submitted The Complainant then asked to have the Contract cancelledShe was referred to the Vendor for this transaction and asked if she therefore wanted the claim cancelledThe Complainant confirmed she wanted the claim cancelledThe claim was administratively closed at that time On 8/7/15, at or about 3:24pmET the Complainant again contacted RoyalDuring this conversation she stated she was going to see if she could find any maintenance records and confirmed where to submit these once locatedShe followed up this communication with another call on 8/10/at or about 2:41pmET at which time she stated she had found records and would be submitting these to our office The records submitted included two (2) repairs completed on 6/12/under the name of “*** *** ***” not under that of the ComplainantThere was also one (1) oil change record completed on 9/10/The oil change record, dated 9/10/2014, listed the “Bill To” name of “*** * ***”There is no last name, no address and limited vehicle information (Year, make, Model only) no Mileage or Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”) Although the claim was re-started on 8/13/15, the Claims Adjuster contacted the Complainant to review the maintenance records received and discuss next stepsThe call was initiated at or about 10:35amET on 8/14/During that call, the Complainant confirmed, as indicated on the invoices dated 6/13/2013, that “*** *** ***” owned the vehicle at that timeThe Adjuster pointed out the concern with the oil change record (no mileage, no VIN) to which the Complainant advised she only has the oil changed once a yearWhen asked when she purchased the vehicle she was not certainShe was asked to provide the Bill of Sale and Title to verify when she bought the vehicleReceipt of the Title was confirmed on 8/17/ The Adjuster contacted the RF on 8/18/at or about 2:39pmET to discuss the claimHe was unable to speak to the representative so a voice message was left for himThis included the fact that the oil change record did not contain necessary informationHe also advised the Complainant’s option to give authorization to complete a tear down of the engine to determine the cause of the failureIn a situation such as this, it is standard practice to advise the RF as to the possibility that despite the teardown, the claim may be denied and the Complainant would be responsible for the costs associated with the tear down The following day, 8/19/at or about 5:27pmET, the Complainant once again contacted our officeShe was advised of the information that was relayed to the RF regarding the problem with the oil change record, the request for a copy of the Registration and her option for tear downThis situation resulted in the Complainant voicing her concerns regarding the process, all information was again reviewedThe need for complete information on the oil change record was addressed and the Complainant acknowledged this and stated she would contact the service provider The Complainant has not submitted any additional service records, Registration or the Bill of SaleThe Title was reviewed which indicates it was issued on 8/2/with the mileage recorded as 137,When the Claim was initiated on 8/4/15, the mileage was given as 154,This would indicate the vehicle had been driven 17,miles over the past two (2) years In accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation, the vehicle should have the oil service completed every milesTherefore the Complainant should have had three (3) oil change recordsShe provided only one (1) which, as previously stated was not acceptable Please refer to the Contract section titled CONTRACT HOLDER’S RESPONSIBILITIES, specifically item VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS, Maintenance Requirements: which state the following: “aYou must have Your Vehicle checked and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, as outlined in the Owner’s Manual for Your Vehicle. NOTE: Your Vehicle’s Owner’s Manual … bIt is required that You retain “Proof” of maintenance for the service and/or repair work performed on Your Vehicle, regardless if the work is performed by You or a repair facility“Proof” means repair orders from a licensed repair facility and/or a self-maintained maintenance log that has corresponding “purchase receipts” for oil and filter, coolant and brake system flush, etcPertinent information must be furnished to identify the Vehicle and the repairs performed such as Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), date, mileage, parts and labor.” Royal has made every effort to allow the Complainant the opportunity to provide the necessary documentation allowing us to proceed with the claimUnfortunately, without proper records to show the vehicle has been maintained in accordance with the Manufacturer’s recommendation there is nothing further to be doneThe claim has been administratively closed Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield
Preferred coverage plan (the “Contract”) from *** *** *** *** *** (the “Vendor”) on 4/29/ At the time of the purchase, the vehicle odometer reading was reported as 76, As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract Royal does not now or at any time participate in the sales process As such, we cannot comment on any communication that occurred between the Complainant and the Vendor during that process The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. To be clear, the Contract was not purchased from a *** *** dealership There is no language within the Contract which indicates this is a *** *** Contract The Contract is sold aftermarket, meaning after the vehicle purchase and is available on a wide range of used vehicle makes and models The Contract states clearly that if the vehicle incurs a breakdown the Complainant should “Take Your Vehicle to a licensed repair facility of Your choice.” A review of the recent claim, #***, indicates the approval was based on new parts, often referred to as “aftermarket” as they are readily available through retail auto parts suppliers These parts meet the standard of “LIKE KIND QUALITY as they meet the manufacturer’s specifications for the vehicle The decision to approve these parts is in accordance to the Contract. Please refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILTIES, item which specifically addresses the replacement of covered parts as follows: “COVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINISTRATOR’S DIECRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.” *** *** of Brooklyn (the “RF”) was provided with the claim authorization which included the basis for the amount authorized The decision to install the *** *** parts was that of the Complainant and the RF As such, the Complainant is responsible for any additional charges made by the RFThe request for reimbursement for the additional costs is hereby denied. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Preferred coverage plan (the “Contract”) from *** *** *** *** *** (the “Vendor”) on 4/29/At the time of the purchase, the vehicle odometer reading was reported as 76,As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractRoyal does not now or at any time participate in the sales processAs such, we cannot comment on any communication that occurred between the Complainant and the Vendor during that processThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsTo be clear, the Contract was not purchased from a *** *** dealershipThere is no language within the Contract which indicates this is a *** *** ContractThe Contract is sold aftermarket, meaning after the vehicle purchase and is available on a wide range of used vehicle makes and modelsThe Contract states clearly that if the vehicle incurs a breakdown the Complainant should “Take Your Vehicle to a licensed repair facility of Your choice.” A review of the recent claim, #***, indicates the approval was based on new parts, often referred to as “aftermarket” as they are readily available through retail auto parts suppliersThese parts meet the standard of “LIKE KIND QUALITY as they meet the manufacturer’s specifications for the vehicleThe decision to approve these parts is in accordance to the ContractPlease refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILTIES, item which specifically addresses the replacement of covered parts as follows: “COVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINISTRATOR’S DIECRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.”*** *** o* *** (the “RF”) was provided with the claim authorization which included the basis for the amount authorizedThe decision to install the *** *** parts was that of the Complainant and the RFAs such, the Complainant is responsible for any additional charges made by the RFThe request for reimbursement for the additional costs is hereby deniedOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue.  Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield Premium coverage plan...

(the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 9/7/2015 at which time the reading of the odometer was indicated as 125,121 miles. The Contract term purchased was 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever occurs first. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions.  The Contract includes SERVICE CONTRACT VALIDATION PERIOD of thirty (30) days and 1000 miles during which time there is no coverage. Coverage commences upon expiration of the validation period. In this instance, on 10/7/2015 AND when the vehicle odometer reads 126,121. The validation period is added to the term to ensure the Contract holder receives coverage the full term purchased.  Our office was contacted on 10/16/15 by the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) and advised the odometer read 126,315. The validation period had expired 9 days and 194 miles prior and as such, a claim was initiated for the drag Link ends, sway bar bushings, brake calipers, master cylinder and, hydraulic unit.  As is standard practice in the event of a claim containing multiple items, a third party independent inspector was dispatched to verify the failures reported and, to determine the cause of said failures. The findings of the inspector and supported by photographs is as follows: "The diag tech was not in. Both front caliper's pistons have seized and the rotors could not be turned. The L side was obviously long term, as the rotor was rusted. The R side was not as old, but has probably been in this condition for some time. The master cylinder showed long term leakage, from the rear seal. Fluid has been running down the booster. The top of the ABS unit was full of fluid. I cleaned this down and pumped the brakes, but no leakage was obvious. This could be spillage from adding to the master cylinder, as the reservoir was full. Both drag link ends were worn out. A 2nd tech pointed out that both upper ball joints were loose." Reference is made to the Contract, section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 13 which states: “13. Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurs during the Validation Period. Given the vehicle had been driven only 194 miles since the expiration of the validation period, it is evident that these problems occurred during the validation period or before the purchase of the Contract. As such, the claim was denied.  With regard to the cancellation refund, it should be noted that the Complainant made a down payment and was to make 16 monthly installments toward the total price of the Contract. The Complainant made only one (1) of the installment payments before he chose to cancel the Contract. It should also be noted that a payment of $55.44 was made to the Roadside company for service rendered on 10/10/15. The state of Illinois cancellation clause states “If a request is made after thirty-five (35) days of purchase, a pro-rata refund percentage figure will be provided, less any claims paid.” It further states “All cancellations are subject to a fifty dollar ($50.00) processing fee or 10% of the Service Contract charge, whichever is less.”  As the cancellation was made after the initial thirty-five (35) days, the pro-rata method to determine his refund was applied resulting in a refund equal to rounded 95.42% of the Contract purchase price less the $50 processing fee. The calculation resulting in a refund of $107.77 was based on the purchase price of $4202. The amount to be retained was $192.40. By subtracting the $350.17 paid by the Complainant from this amount and then subtracting the processing fee, the refund available to the Complainant was $107.77. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. The Complainant states he is seeking a refund for the funds he has paid thus far for the purchase of the Contract. In accordance to the Cancellation clause provided in the Contract, the Complainant may cancel the Contract at any time. To cancel, he should mail written notice to [redacted], the “Vendor”. A notarized odometer statement indicating the odometer reading at the date of the request is required. It is also recommended that his written notice indicate the reason for his decision to cancel. All cancellations are processed in accordance with the Contract and, if applicable, any state requirements. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.  Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Select coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted]...

[redacted] dba [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 3/7/2014. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. The Vendor notified Royal of the Complainant’s decision to cancel the Contract on 6/30/15. The effective date of the cancellation was entered as 6/26/16. In accordance with the Contract, a pro-rated refund reflecting 75.03% of the consideration received was paid to the Finance Company, [redacted]. The Vendor is responsible for refunding the Complainant.  The Complainant contacted our office on 8/26/15 regarding his refund. He was referred to the Vendor. Our office was again contacted on 10/27/15 at which time the Complainant was again advised to contact the Vendor with regard to the refund owed.  In an effort to assist the Complainant, Royal has contacted the Vendor to secure confirmation the refund has been issued. Upon receipt of that information, out office will contact the Complainant and advise of that response. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
My claim hasn't been satisfied and the adjuster is still not offering what the service manager at [redacted] says he needs to complete  the job. What they are offering still leaves a considerable amount that I have to pay out of pocket when my policy states $100 deductible. I went over that with the adjuster when he called to reverse the decision and he said I was correct about only paying the $100 deductible. I also recorded all calls to the company and have a slightly different version of the events that occurred. I'm sure they think they are covering themselves by leaving out portions of conversations and the fact I was hung up on that's why the rep called to apologize(which is also on tape). I will continue to reject their response until my vehicle is fixed properly and in my possession. The [redacted] dealer called yesterday several times to go over all options and called me at 5pm to say they haven't heard back from said adjuster yet. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below.  
Regards,
[redacted]
They are saying the problem was diagnosed on July 28, 2014, which it was NOT. I was told to get my U-joints checked by my father based on the noise I was hearing. There is nowhere on my maintenance report showing anything was fixed because they could not replicate the noise I was describing. They said they advised me on what was denied on multiple occasions, verbally which is a lie. The only contact I had with this company was through email and every email I was given different reasons from the original, as to why my claim was denied. And they are claiming that the drive/axle was repaired and covered by [redacted] I NEVER told them that I filed a claim or got my vehicle fixed through Fidelity for this problem. What Royal Administration was responsible for covering, I paid for out of my pocket to get this problem fixed and the noise I was hearing in July 2014 is still going on which means what I filed a claim for had NOTHING to do with what I was hearing in July because I am STILL HEARING IT. They were two totally different noises! They also lied and said that the Repair Facility stated that there was a noise in the rear of the vehicle which became louder upon acceleration. It clearly states on my invoice "C/S loud popping noise when turn". I am sick and tired of this company assuming things just to come up with something to not do their part!

This complaint was initially filed under complaint #[redacted] (thru the Marlborough, MA Revdex.com location). Initial complaint is as follows: Vehicle Service Contract (VSC) purchased on 02/09/2015 covering a 2005 [redacted] RX330 with about 70K miles. On 08/01, took vehicle in to [redacted] facility and was informed that speed senor needed replacement. Claim filed (by [redacted]) on 08/03 and Royal Administration Services rep did not come out to inspect until 08/07 and told [redacted] Service Advisor ([redacted]) that a decision would be made soon. On 08/10, [redacted] contacted Royal Administration Services and was told that on 08/11 that the claim was denied for "rust/corrosion". [redacted] informed vehicle owner that time was contributing factor. Royal Administration Services has not been easy to deal with, counter to what I was told during the "sales" process. The complaint was closed (by consumer) because decision to cover repair was reversed and so approved. On 08/27, I was contacted by the Service Advisor at [redacted] that Royal Administration Services did not approve the use of OEM ([redacted]) parts, therefore making me responsible for $31.49. I contacted [redacted] and [redacted] of [redacted] (the company from whom I purchased the vehicle warranty) on 08/27 and 08/31 asking for clarification about the use of OEM parts and not being covered. To date, I have not received a response from them.  I would like clarification that OEM parts are covered for a repair as it does not state otherwise in the terms of the vehicle service contract. The contract states that approved repairs can be made at any "licensed repair facility". Furthermore, I would like a refund of the $31.49 because I do not feel that I should have had to pay above the contract stated deductible of $100.00.

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above.  I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue.   Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage...

plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 12/31/15 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 102,200.  As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. ("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract.  The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions.  On 5/27/16, at or about 5:55pm ET our office received a call from [redacted], a representative of [redacted], the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF").  [redacted] advised the vehicle was in need of an air conditioner evaporator which would also require the appropriate fluids.  As the evaporator is a listed item for coverage, a claim was initiated.   In accordance with standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to verify the failure and to determine the cause of said failure.   This process was delayed in that the vehicle was not at the address provided at the time of the claim but rather another of their locations.  The inspection was thus completed on 6/6/16.   Each claims adjuster has established dollar limits for claims.  In the event the cost of a repair exceeds his limit he is required to escalate the claim for review.  In this instance the adjuster assigned reviewed the estimated cost of the repair and the inspector’s findings.  The estimate exceeded his dollar limit so he forwarded the claim to the quality assurance team for review.    The evaporator core was removed from the vehicle for the inspection.   When describing the condition of the evaporator core the inspector stated “one corner is very wet leak, long term, on both sides of the evaporator core.  No other failures seen.”   Photographs of the evaporator core were provided and support his observations.   Per a written request received from the Complainant, a copy of the inspection report was sent to her via email on or about 6/17/16.  The decision to deny the claim was based on the photographs which, as stated, clearly show a significant wet area at one corner of the evaporator.   When viewing a photograph of the entire evaporator it appears the stain covers nearly a quarter of the area.  In addition, there is a preponderance of grime buildup beside the stain.  The oil and dye disbursement on the evaporator core would take a long period of time to occur.  The inspector stated “both sides” which further indicates a long term leak.   Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 13 which states: “13. Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurs during the Validation Period.”  The Contract carries a validation period of thirty (30) days and 1000 miles from the purchase date and starting mileage.  Based on the findings of the independent third party inspector and supporting photographs, the claim was denied as the breakdown occurred during or prior to the Validation Period being met.   Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract.  Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.   Very truly yours,[redacted]Director of Operation

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue. Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield Premium coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/15/15. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. The Contract is “part specific” in that it lists all parts that will be considered for coverage in the event of a mechanical failure. If the part needed is not listed then the Contract will not cover the repair. On 1/13/2016 our office received a call from [redacted], a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility. [redacted] advised the Complainant had brought the vehicle in with regard to there being no interior heat on the passenger side of the vehicle. He advised the vehicle needed the right side temperature blendor actuator. A review of the listed parts for coverage does NOT include this part and as such, we are unable to assist with the cost of this repair. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above.  Based on the information provided, I have requested the claim in question be re-opened for further consideration.  The Complainant has been contacted via email and advised of this action.  At the conclusion of the review, the Complainant will be contacted directly to discuss our findings.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract.  Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law. This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above.  Based on the information provided, I have requested the claim in question be re-opened for further consideration. The Complainant has been contacted via email and advised of this action. At the conclusion of the review, the Complainant will be contacted directly to discuss our findings.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above.  I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue.   Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Select coverage plan...

(the "Contract") from [redacted], Inc.  (the "Vendor") on 10/4/13.  As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. ("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract.   Royal does not now nor at any time participated in the sale of the Contract and as such cannot comment on any communication between the Complainant and the Vendor.  The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions.  The Contract is referred to as “part specific” in that it provides coverage, in the event of a mechanical failure, to ONLY those parts specifically listed under section 3 tilted COVERAGE.  When receiving a call from a Contract Holder or his/her selected repair facility (RF) the Contract coverage is checked.  If the part(s) is listed, a claim will be initiated for review by a Claims Adjuster.    Our records confirm Claim #[redacted] was initiated on 5/29/2014 and approved on 6/3/2014 for a used transmission, as well as, transmission fluid, a filter, front pump seal and, a rear seal.  The Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) contacted our office on 6/4/2014 at which time it was requested that Royal order the transmission and have it shipped to that facility.    The transmission purchased carries a warranty of 12 months or 12,000 miles provided by the part supplier.  On 5/5/2015, at which time said warranty was still applicable, the Complainant contacted our office to inquire as to diagnostic costs and stated she was experiencing (what she believed to be) an electrical issue.  She was advised that the warranty on the transmission was still available and to have the problem determined by the RF.  Later that same day, 5/5/2015, our office received a call from the RF.  The caller, [redacted], stated the vehicle was in need of a battery clamp and timing chain tensioner.  A review of the listed components indicated neither items were listed thus no claim was initiated.   The Complainant then contacted Royal on 5/7/15.  She was advised that timing chain tensioner is not listed for coverage and was directed to her RF with regard to any transmission concern.  The Vendor contacted us on 5/11/2015, via email inquiring on behalf of the Complainant.  The same directive was given that the Complainant was to take the vehicle to the RF.  No communication was received from her RF nor did our office receive any further communication from the Complainant regarding the transmission.   On 5/31/2016 a call was received from the RF asking to start a claim on the “door ajar switch” and the heated and cool seat cushions and filters.   A review of the Contract coverage was done which did NOT list these items.  Therefore no claim was initiated.   Additional calls were received from the Complainant and the RF.  It was clarified that the part needed is, in fact, the “door ajar (or “jam”) switch” as originally stated.   The last call resulted in the Complainant speaking directly to a Supervisor to clarify this matter.  The Complainant confirmed she was having no problem locking or unlocking her door(s).  When driving, although the door is closed, the door alarm comes on to advise the door is ajar.  The part needed is located inside the door which triggers a sensor to advise the driver that the door is not properly closed.   The fact this is an electrical part is not in dispute, the issue is, is this part listed for coverage.   Please refer to the Contract, section 3, COVERAGE.  I have underlined the specific switches that are listed within the ELECTRICAL coverage which states: “Alternator, voltage regulator, starter motor, starter solenoid, ignition switch, front & rear wiper motors and switches, washer pump and switch, headlamp switch, turn signal switch, rear defroster switch, AC/heater blower speed switch, power window motors, regulators and switches, power door lock actuators and switches.”  The “door ajar” switch is NOT listed.  Only the switches associated with the door lock actuator are listed meaning the switches used to lock and unlock the door are included.  The Complaint confirmed the locking and unlocking of her door(s) is NOT the problem.  The decision that the part needed is not listed has been confirmed.   Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract.  Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.