Royal Administration Services, Inc.

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue. Please refer to the Contract section titled ADDIITIONAL BENEFITS (Included at no cost): item 2, Rental Benefit, which stipulates the following: “Rental car agreement charges will only be reimbursed to You for charges incurred from a licensed rental agency.” The Complainant secured her substitute transportation from [redacted], an on line service where privately owned vehicles are offered for rental. This does not qualify as a licensed rental agency. As such, the Complainant’s request for reimbursement was denied. 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. 
The terms and conditions stated in the VSC ("the contract") does not mention anything about the using the "Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price" (MSRP).  The OEM replacement parts were obtained through the [redacted]/[redacted] parts distribution and the repair took place at a [redacted] dealer/repair facility.   The [redacted] Service Advisor stated to me that at no time was the Claims Representative from "Royal" willing to approve the part replace at the cost quoted by the [redacted] Service Advisor.  It appears that Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) either used zone pricing in their repair estimate, did not take into consideration the area in which the vehicle was repaired and/or engaged in repair practices that looks for the lowest possible price, thus placing the customer at a significant disadvantage come repair time.  No where in the VSC ("the contract") does it state that if the repair part exceeds the amount covered by the plan, the cus[redacted]er would be responsible for the difference. 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. 
This vehicle has no modified tires on the truck. I can take a picture and send it to you if you would like. The tires are normal size and no modifications have been done to that truck. It has [redacted] factory stock tires on it. The dealership that I bought the vehicle from has confirmed that several times with you and [redacted] has confirmed on multiple occasions that the tires are stock [redacted] factory tires and has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the engine. If this is truly your response then the warranty contract was sold under fraudulent conditions as I never changed anything on the vehicle and I even called to verify everything that was covered and not covered before I purchased the vehicle. I even read the contract before I purchased the car how can you say the tires are over sized when obviously you know they are not. 
Regards,
[redacted]

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have again reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue.  Following conversations held with the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) on 12/2/15, the claim was amended to include an additional two (2) hours of labor. In addition, per the request of the RF, the transmission was ordered and was to be shipped to the RF.  The Complainant references “only paying the $100 deductible”. The Claims Adjuster spoke to the Complainant’s husband ([redacted]) at which time he provided the amount approved less the $100 deductible. Mr. [redacted] stated “like the term says $100 out of my pocket …” The adjuster confirmed that was based on the used transmission which we priced. Please refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES item 1 which states: “BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTSWe will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs to repair or replace any Breakdown of a part listedin the Plan Coverage Section, as determined by the Administrator using standard and common industrypractices. COVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINISTRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.” The “reasonable cost” in this instance was adjusted to increase the labor time as requested by the RF. As such, we would anticipate the Complainant will have little if any additional costs above the $100 deductible. However, it should be noted, should the RF assess any additional charges these would be the responsibility of the Complainant. As stated in the Contract section titled IF YOUR VEHICLE INCURS A BREAKDOWN, subsection 3: “When you pick up Your Vehicle, You must:A. Review the work performed with the repair facility representative.B. Pay the Deductible amount shown in the Registration Page.C. Pay for any charges not covered by this Service Contract.D. Pay for the cost of covered components or repairs above the amount approved by Administrator. 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 that the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield Premium coverage plan...

(the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 12/14/15 at which time the odometer reading was reported as 109,987. 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 subject to a Validation Period of thirty (30) days AND 1,000 miles. Once the Validation Period has expired, the Contract coverage will commence. In this instance, the coverage commenced after 1/13/2016 AND the vehicle odometer reached 110,987.  On 2/1/16 at 5:35:38pmET our office received a call from a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”). The RF reported the vehicle mileage as 111,830 indicating the Validation Period had been and coverage had been in effect for 843 miles and 19 days.  The RF advised the vehicle had been towed in and the Complainant reported it had “died while driving”. The RF had not completed diagnosis so had not yet determined what specifically caused the engine to stop. A claim was promptly initiated.  The claims adjuster contacted the RF the following day. The RF reported the timing chain broke and there were bent valves. In accordance to standard operating practice, the RF was asked to secure the Complainant’s authorization to complete a tear down of the engine, to the point where the failure would be visible or determinable. Once completed an independent third party inspector was dispatched to verify the failure and determine the cause.  Although the repair needed may be listed in the Contract coverage, the cause of the failure must be determined. The Contract coverage is specific to a failure due to defects in materials and/or workmanship of a part to function as designed by the manufacturer. Simply put, the cause of the failure is a determining factor when adjudicating a claim.   The inspector’s findings indicated the cause of the failure was the timing chain which had stretched to the extent it was “whipping around”. For a timing chain to stretch to that point occurs over thousands of miles of driving. Given coverage had commenced under the Contract for only 843 miles the claim was denied.  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. 
[If you are rejecting the business's response please enter your rejection comments here.] The repair shop that diagnosed my vehicle said the axle failure was absolutely NOT the result of rust or corrosion.  Axles are made to withstand the elements.  This axle failed due to a defect in the part.  Royal sells extended insurance policies to vehicle owners who are attempting to insure vehicles that are, by the very nature of the insurance, aged vehicles.  Every vehicle that has been on the road for a number of years will show signs of "rust" and "corrosion".  It is way too convenient for Royal to point to area rust and declare it caused the part to fail.  Axles do not, in the ordinary course, simply wear out, either due to use or the elements.  In fact, my repair shop could find only 1 axle available in the U.S.  If axles failed due to rust and corrosion, replacements would be much more common.   I purchased coverage for the kind of part failure that occurred, and I deserve to get the benefit of what I paid for.  Thank you. 
Regards,
[redacted]

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 telephone calls and, examined the files at issue.  Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan...

(the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 2/28/2015. 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. On 9/21/15 at 3:35:17pm ET our office received a call from [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) at which time a claim was initiated for all four (4) door lock actuators. As it is unusual for all of the door actuators to fail at one time, an independent inspection was ordered for the purpose of verifying the failures and determining the cause of said failures.  Inspection of the vehicle revealed that the rear door lock actuators were not responding to the switch commands and the front actuators were moving only slightly. The RF technician demonstrated power and ground by attaching a tell-tale light to each harness and monitoring the result when toggling the lock switch. Each location was verified for power and ground consistent with all four lock actuators to be inoperable. As a result of these findings all four (4) door lock actuators were approved for replacement.  The Contract allows for replacement parts, depending upon availability and at the Administrator’s discretion, to be like kind and quality (LKQ), used, rebuilt, remanufactured or new. The claim was approved for the front door lock actuators as new ** parts priced at the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the rear door lock actuators as new aftermarket parts available through Advance Auto.  On 9/29/15 the RF contacted our office regarding the rear door lock actuators approved. The Claims Adjuster (the “CA”) was not immediately available but returned the call at 9:38:19amET. During that conversation, the RF advised the aftermarket parts were not compatible with the vehicle as it needed the “whole assembly”. The RF read from a document regarding the front door lock actuator. The Claims Adjuster (the “CA”) advised the front were priced per ** part number.  The RF stated he tried the aftermarket part and would not work as he needed the whole lock assembly. As the Contract lists only the door lock actuator, the CA asked that RF to provide documentation to show that the rear door lock actuators are not separate from the entire lock. The CA was transferred to another party ([redacted]) who again referenced the front door lock actuators. The CA advised the approval for the front were priced per the RF ** part number provided and asked for information regarding the rear door actuators.  [redacted] stated the aftermarket parts “don’t match” he expected these to match the ** assembly and don’t fit. The CA requested documentation to show the problem. A parts layout showing only available as one assembly and the aftermarket won’t fit. [redacted] declined to provide this information and stated “we’re not going to move forward … We’re done with it… we’re going to tell the customer to come pick it up.”  Based on our research, the aftermarket door lock actuators will fit the vehicle and are readily available. Had the RF submitted documentation to refute that information, Royal would have amended the claim accordingly.  At this time, our office was advised by the Vendor that the Complainant has decided to take the vehicle to another repair facility for these repairs. Upon notification of the “new” repair facility (the “NRF”), the claim will be transferred accordingly. In the event the NRF provides said documentation, the approval will be reviewed as needed.  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. 
Attached is the invoice from 7/28/14 on which this company (Royal) based their decision of “pre-existing” on. There is also an attachment of what was paid for and fixed. There were two separate complaints and two totally different noises heard. They ASSUMED from the 7/28/14 invoice that the noise was related to what my claim was filed for, which it was not! Even after I paid to repair what this company refused to cover, the noise from 7/28/14 is STILL happening which clearly had nothing to do with what was denied on my claim. I would also like to see phone records where this company “claimed” to have contacted me verbally on several occasions (so they stated in the first response to Revdex.com) to tell me why my claim was denied.
Regards,
[redacted]

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 Peoples Vehicle Protection Premier...

coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 5/22/2014. 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 been a participant 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.  The Contract is commonly referred to as “part specific” in that it clearly lists all components/parts that will be covered in the event of a mechanical failure. If the component/part is not listed in the Coverage section then it is not eligible for coverage and the Complainant would be responsible for all costs associated with that repair.  Our office was contacted by the Complainant on or about 10/29/15 and inquired as to coverage for the vehicle back-up camera. He was advised it was not listed for coverage. On 1/18/16 a representative from a repair facility selected by the Complainant contacted our office and also inquired as to coverage for the back-up camera and was again advised this part is not listed for coverage.  In the event the Complainant wishes to cancel this Contract, he should submit to Royal a signed written request which includes a statement of the vehicle mileage. Upon receipt, the request will be processed in accordance with the Contract cancellation clause as required by the state of Illinois.  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.  I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.   As indicated by the photograph of the vehicle placard provided by the independent inspector, the OEM Tire size for the Complainant’s vehicle is 255/65R17.  The tires on the vehicle are 275/65R18.  A tire comparative chart indicates the variance is 6.73% oversize.  In addition the speed variance resulting from the oversized tires is 6.31% slower than the OEM tire size.   Please see the photograph and comparative chart provided. To be clear, the decision to deny the claim is not that the oversized tires are related to the repair needed but rather to the fact that the Contract clearly stipulates an exclusion of coverage when there has been an alteration to the vehicle which specifically includes “oversized/undersized tires or wheels”.   Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 16 which states: “16.   Any  alterations  which  have  been  made  to Your  Vehicle  and  are  not  factory- installed; frame or suspension modifications; lift kits; oversized/undersized tires or wheels; trailer hitches; or any other modifications to any of Your Vehicle’s systems.”  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. I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue. As indicated by the photograph of the vehicle placard provided by the independent inspector, the OEM Tire size for the Complainant’s vehicle is 255/65R17. The tires on the vehicle are 275/65R18. A tire comparative chart indicates the variance is 6.73% oversize. In addition the speed variance resulting from the oversized tires is 6.31% slower than the OEM tire size. Please see the photograph and comparative chart provided.To be clear, the decision to deny the claim is not that the oversized tires are related to the repair needed but rather to the fact that the Contract clearly stipulates an exclusion of coverage when there has been an alteration to the vehicle which specifically includes “oversized/undersized tires or wheels”. Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 16 which states: “16. Any alterations which have been made to Your Vehicle and are not factory- installed; frame or suspension modifications; lift kits; oversized/undersized tires or wheels; trailer hitches; or any other modifications to any of Your Vehicle’s systems.” 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. I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue. As indicated by the photograph of the vehicle placard provided by the independent inspector, the OEM Tire size for the Complainant’s vehicle is 255/65R17. The tires on the vehicle are 275/65R18. A tire comparative chart indicates the variance is 6.73% oversize. In addition the speed variance resulting from the oversized tires is 6.31% slower than the OEM tire size. Please see the photograph and comparative chart provided.To be clear, the decision to deny the claim is not that the oversized tires are related to the repair needed but rather to the fact that the Contract clearly stipulates an exclusion of coverage when there has been an alteration to the vehicle which specifically includes “oversized/undersized tires or wheels”. Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 16 which states: “16. Any alterations which have been made to Your Vehicle and are not factory- installed; frame or suspension modifications; lift kits; oversized/undersized tires or wheels; trailer hitches; or any other modifications to any of Your Vehicle’s systems.” 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. 
1.  The businesses response states "the invoice submitted by the Complainant's selected repair facility was reviewed...", why do they have to start a new process "to determine the reasonable cost of this repair"?  This is another example of how this business treats its customers.  Why couldn't they quickly indicate the amount they would cover in their response?  My repair facility charged me $926.83 to replace the defective solenoid and I expect Royal Administration Services to reimburse me this amount.2.  In my complaint I mentioned a number of items in my desired settlement.  I would like the business to refund my entire premium of $3,764 less the amounts paid for my claims.  I don't want to have to do business with them any longer as they a) take an unreasonable amount of time to approve and/or deny claims (9 days after the first call and 6 days after the second call), b) their supervisors/mgmt take an unreasonable of time to return phone calls, (6 days) and c) they have no dispute resolution process. (I was shut down after speaking with [redacted] and was given no opportunity to appeal their decision or to speak with her manager.)  Also, it cost me $3,400 to repair the items that should have been covered by this warranty claim, and the business has only covered $1,232 worth of repairs so far.  If they cover the $927 in item #1, I would like a refund of ($3,764-$1,232-$927=) $1,605.3.  I believe the business is misleading its customers based on my experience, the 163 Revdex.com complaints, the 32 negative (out of 37) Revdex.com customer reviews, as well as all the negative reviews on [redacted].com,  comsumeraffairs.com and ripoffreport.com.  I would like the business to commit to provide any prospective customers a list of items they will not cover as part of their extended warranty, agree to attempt to close claims in less than 48 hours, and document a dispute resolution process.Regards,
[redacted]

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.  The Complainant references having “called in three additional times and was told that I did not have a warrantee contract with them.” To date, our records show only one (1) call received after the 4/8/2013 letter was sent. That call was received on 5/6/2013 and there is no record of any calls received at Royal since that time.  Had the Complainant contacted Royal, her contract would have been located in our database using several search criteria including the Contract Number, the Vehicle Identification number, her name and/or address. Based on the Complainant’s statement, that she requested but was not provided “the companies phone number to call in”, it would seem apparent that she was not calling Royal!  At this time, it is suggested the Complainant contact our office ([redacted]) and ask to speak with the Director of Operations, [redacted]. The Complainant may also choose to submit the repair invoices she references to Ms. [redacted] via fax ###-###-####. Please understand this does not constitute any promise to reimburse the Complainant but only to determine coverage for repairs made and consider making an exception to the pre-authorization requirement.  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. 
[If you are rejecting the business's response please enter your rejection comments here.] The findings of [redacted] the independent inspector - Material failure of rear differential left side carrier bearing with sub damages to other rear differential bearings. This is not a sudden failure.My question to [redacted],  the independent inspector,  and the adjuster's from Royal Administration -What exactly constitutes "Sudden Failure"? Is it 100, 500 or is it 10,000 miles? After speaking with [redacted],  the service advisor, and [redacted] an ASE certified service technician for [redacted] , both which have over 30 years of experience working on these vehicles, both agreed that according to the damage and evidence they found, they couldn't tell me with 100% accuracy when the damage occurred to the 2003  [redacted] rear differential. They went on to tell me that this kind of damage can happen within 200 or 2000 miles, and that there is no way anyone can say with 100% certainty that it didn't happen within the 1012 miles the [redacted] has after the Service Validation Period.The question that needs  to be answered by all 3 individuals - Can any of them proof to me with 100% certainly that the damage to the 2003 [redacted] differential couldn't have occurred within 1012 miles? If the answer to that question is "No" then this claim shouldn't not be denied. If the answer is "Yes" then an explanation with 100% accuracy of the exact date as to when the damage started.In addition, the car was brought into the dealership on August 24, 2015 with 83156 miles on odometer four days and 182 miles prior to purchasing the service warranty contract. The vehicle was taken in for several National Recalls and was serviced.  At that time, as you can see on the repair invoice there are no records of any rear differential damage.    The main reason I purchased the warranty was because my son is a student at the [redacted] in [redacted], Indiana and I live in Florida.  I wanted to make sure if there were any  issues with his car, it would be covered with the warranty vs going to a mechanic.  As he is a student athlete and does not have the time or enough knowledge of cars to resolve any issues.  He brought the car into [redacted] when he started hearing a noise coming from the rear of the [redacted].  This is the exact reason why I purchased the warranty and I can't believe I'm having to fight for what I've been paying for.   Regards,[redacted]

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 3/6/2015 at which time the mileage was reported as 112,500. 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.  Royal does not now or has in the past been a participant in the sale of the Contract. As such we cannot comment as to the communication which occurred between the Complainant and the Dealer at the time of said purchase.  The Contract is “part specific” in that only those parts specifically listed will be covered in the event of a mechanical breakdown. Any and all exclusions of coverage as indicated under the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED apply.  During the course of the adjudication process it was determined that cause of the failure was due to long term oil leaks as evidenced by the oil appearing on the underside of the drive train running all the way to the transfer case. Given the oil leaks, the engine did not have the proper amount of oil to run which resulted in the failure. The Complainant references several services made to the vehicle since January. He did not, however, reference his prior knowledge of oil leaks which he was advised of on or about May 15, 2015. In his email correspondence of that date first to [redacted] of [redacted] he wrote: “…Brought my truck in for the steering column and the mechanic mentioned that I had an oil leak coming from the back of the engine. I asked him to look in to fixing it and he said that it would require removing the engine to fit it and potentially having to replace it. While the truck still runs, just leaking, would my coverage require that the engine breakdown before the repairs or replacement can be done? …” [redacted] (of [redacted]) responded to his question that same day. After which the Complainant wrote: “… As previously mentioned, the truck is running fine, just the leak was brought to my attention today. I understand that the seals and gaskets are not covered on their own, but my dilemma is the expense of the tear down, if there is nothing more than a leak. There is more of a likelihood that there is something causing it, but I feel it would make more sense to wait a little longer to see if anything further happens….” Clearly, the Complainant was aware of an oil leak. He made the conscious decision not to address it at that time and several weeks later the engine failed due to the lack of proper lubrication to the engine. This further confirms the decision to deny the claim as the Complainant failed to protect the vehicle from further damage knowing there was a problem.  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 [redacted] Care Titanium coverage plan (the...

"Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 5/26/16 at which time the reported mileage of the covered vehicle was 59,622. 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. Please refer to the GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Contract, specifically item c which makes reference to Pre-Owned Vehicles and begins as follows: “No coverage will be provided under this AGREEMENT for pre-owned VEHICLES during the first thirty (30) days following the AGREEMENT purchase date, and for the first one thousand (1,000) miles the VEHICLE is driven after this AGREEMENT is purchased, as calculated from the odometer reading shown on the DECLARATION PAGE.”Upon initiation of the first claim (#[redacted]) on 7/5/16, the Contract had been available for use for only ten (10) days and had been driven 2,975 miles in that time. It was determined that one item, the right from CV boot would be covered as it was clearly a short term failure. However, the request for coverage of the steering rack was denied as existing prior to meeting the referenced time/mileage frames referenced above. This determination was the result of an independent third party inspector’s findings as supported by photographs of a heavy buildup of road grime indicating a long term leak at the steering gear left side shaft seal. The lack of fluid then caused the breakdown of the steering rack.  The second claim (#[redacted]) was started on 8/2/16, thirty-eight (38) days after driving the vehicle 4070 miles. The repair facility reported multiple repairs needed. These included the right front CV boot, left front axle shaft, two (2) struts, a brake booster and, the master cylinder. Once again an inspection was ordered resulting in approval of the all but two of the requested items. The strut failures were determined to have been the result of a long term leak evidenced by the saturation of the strut housing. Although it was determined the brake booster had failed, there was no failure to the master cylinder demonstrated by the repair facility to the inspector. It was thought at the time that additional disassembly was needed to verify a failure to this part. A third claim (#[redacted]) was called in on 8/8/16 at which time the repair facility provided additional information with regard to the master cylinder. Upon review, the second claim (#[redacted]) was amended to now include the master cylinder and the third claim discarded as it was a duplication. The end result of which is that other than those items found to have failed prior to the Contract being available for use have now been approved.  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 [redacted] Care Titanium coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 5/26/16 at which time the reported mileage of the covered vehicle was 59,622.  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.  Please refer to the GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Contract, specifically item c which makes reference to Pre-Owned Vehicles and begins as follows: “No coverage will be provided under this AGREEMENT for pre-owned VEHICLES  during the first thirty (30) days following the AGREEMENT purchase date, and for the first one thousand (1,000) miles the VEHICLE is driven after this AGREEMENT is purchased, as calculated from the odometer reading shown on the DECLARATION PAGE.” Upon initiation of the first claim (#[redacted]) on 7/5/16, the Contract had been available for use for only ten (10) days and had been driven 2,975 miles in that time.   It was determined that one item, the right from CV boot would be covered as it was clearly a short term failure.  However, the request for coverage of the steering rack was denied as existing prior to meeting the referenced time/mileage frames referenced above.  This determination was the result of an independent third party inspector’s findings as supported by photographs of a heavy buildup of road grime indicating a long term leak at the steering gear left side shaft seal.  The lack of fluid then caused the breakdown of the steering rack.    The second claim (#[redacted]) was started on 8/2/16, thirty-eight (38) days after driving the vehicle 4070 miles.   The repair facility reported multiple repairs needed.  These included the right front CV boot, left front axle shaft, two (2) struts, a brake booster and, the master cylinder.  Once again an inspection was ordered resulting in approval of the all but two of the requested items.  The strut failures were determined to have been the result of a long term leak evidenced by the saturation of the strut housing.  Although it was determined the brake booster had failed, there was no failure to the master cylinder demonstrated by the repair facility to the inspector.  It was thought at the time that additional disassembly was needed to verify a failure to this part.   A third claim (#[redacted]) was called in on 8/8/16 at which time the repair facility provided additional information with regard to the master cylinder.   Upon review, the second claim (#[redacted]) was amended to now include the master cylinder and the third claim discarded as it was a duplication.  The end result of which is that other than those items found to have failed prior to the Contract being available for use have now been approved.  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.  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 Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted]...

[redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 7/9/15. 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 written terms and conditions. Claim #[redacted] was approved on 11/19/15 after securing additional information and speaking with both the Complainant and a representative of her selected repair facility. It was agreed that Royal would have the replacement part shipped to the repair facility, pay for that part, as well as, an agreed upon amount for labor costs. In addition, the claim deductible has been waived.  The service concerns presented by the Complainant are being reviewed and appropriate action will be taken with regard to any inappropriate behavior identified. It should be noted that a return call was made to the Complainant on 11/10/15 at which time a message was left. Later that same day, [redacted] again returned the call and spoke with the Complainant. This resulted in additional documentation being requested and the eventual reversal of the original decision.  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 Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from...

[redacted] (the "Vendor") on 2/29/16 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 116,126. 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 carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and 1,000 miles from the date of purchase and mileage reported at that time. The Contract stipulates there is no coverage during that period. In addition, in the event a breakdown is determined to have occurred during the Validation Period or prior to the purchase of the Contract, coverage will be excluded. Our records indicate two (2) claims have been adjudicated on behalf of the Complainant. The first, Claim #[redacted] (Claim 1) was initiated on 4/28/16 at which time the mileage was reported as 117,514. As both aspects of the Validation Period were met, Claim 1 was reviewed and approved that same day for the replacement of both the front door and sliding door lock actuators. On Friday, 5/6/16 at 5:12pmET. [redacted], a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (RF) contacted our office. It is presumed the vehicle had not left the RF after the approval of Claim 1 as the reported mileage was the same, 117,514,when the RF initiated the second claim, #[redacted] (Claim 2) at that time. To be clear, the vehicle had been driven only 388 miles AFTER the Validation Period was met. This means the failure to the transmission would have had to occur within that specific mileage to be eligible for coverage. This would mean a “sudden failure”. In accordance with standard adjudication process, the assigned Claims Adjuster contacted the RF at 5:39pmET to secure further information. [redacted] stated at that time Royal should send the inspector and she will drop the pan when he arrives. After clarifying the situation regarding the low mileage and “sudden failure” [redacted] stated her RF would be responsible for the tear-down to expedite the process. She clearly stated if the claim is denied the RF will cover the costs of the tear-down. The inspector called the RF in an attempt to view the vehicle. The inspector advised at 6:28amPT on 5/10/16 that he had not received a return call from the RF. At 4:11pm PT, the inspector noted he had left three (3) messages for the RF without receiving a response. This resulted in a delay of the inspection which was finally completed on 5/11/16 at 4:30pmPT. The inspector secured the RF Service Technician’s notes, as well as conducted his own inspection. Both parties found the valve body shows signs of overheat and burnt fluid which is consistent with an internal failure of the valve body. This caused subsequent damage to the 2-4 clutches. First, if the cause of failure is due to an overheat condition the Contract excludes coverage. In addition, the conditions  of the fluid and the valve body are not consistent with having driven 388 miles. Clearly this situation occurred prior to the completion of the Validation Period and most likely before the Contract was purchased. Therefore Claim 2 was denied. 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 [redacted] coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Dealer”) on 11/28/2012. 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 Contract is commonly referred to “exclusionary” in that it provides coverage for all mechanical failures with the exception of those parts or circumstances that are specifically listed. These exclusions are found under the coverage section titled MANUFACTURER’S PLUS which lists “Rust/Corrosion”, as well as, the section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, which include “rust or corrosion” in the content of items 3 and 12. Recently, a claim was denied as the failure was due to this exclusion. Specifically, the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) initiated a claim on 7/15/15 for two (2) leaking power steering hoses/lines. In accordance to standard operating procedures, the assigned claims adjuster contacted the RF to verify the failure and cause of same. During that conversation on 7/16/15 at 12:07:19pm ET, the question was asked as to whether both hoses/lines were leaking. The RF stated “both lines are leaking, yes, (pause) rusted out”. When the adjuster said “Rusted out, huh?” The RF responded “… rotted, rusted however you want to look at it.” Upon learning this, the adjuster correctly advised the RF that rust and/or corrosion is a stated exclusion in the Contract and therefore the claim would be denied. 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. I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and, examined the files at issue.  As previously stated 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.  Royal does not now, nor has at any time in the past participated in the sale of the Contract. As such, we cannot comment on any communication between the Complainant and the Vendor.  The Complainant indicates the claim approval was not for “OEM” parts. When the claim was initiated by a representative of the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (“RF”) the OEM part numbers were provided and stated the cost of each speed sensor was said to be $337.39.  In the normal course of the adjudication process, the Claims Adjuster used the part numbers provided and found the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”) for each speed sensor was $247.12. Thus, when the claim was approved, the part pricing was based on the OEM part using MSRP.  A review of the invoice submitted by the RF shows the same part numbers were priced at $271.12 each. This is a cost of $24.00 MORE than the MSRP. The difference for the two (2) speed sensors would thus be $48.00 plus applicable tax and would be the responsibility of the Complainant.  For future reference regarding part pricing, please refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES, item 1 BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS which states: “We will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs of 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. COBVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY AND AT THE ADMINISTRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.” 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. Please refer to our letter dated March 7, 2013 issued in response to Complaint ID [redacted] a copy...

of which has been provided for your convenience. Our office extended the Complainant the opportunity to have the Contract reinstated upon receipt of “proof of payment”. The Complainant provided said “proof of payment” and on April 8, 2013 she was notified in writing the Contract had been reinstated. Please see copies of both the Complainant’s letter dated March 13, 1013 and that issued by Royal on April 8, 2013 provided. With regard to coverage and reimbursement of “covered” repairs; the Contract states clearly and unambiguously that all repairs must be pre-authorized by the Administrator (Royal) or the repair will not be covered. This is stated multiple times within the terms and conditions of the Contract as well as, the first statement under the section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED which reads: “ANY REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT MADE WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR.” In addition, the Contract purchased is commonly referred to as “part specific” in that it allows for coverage ONLY on the components and parts listed under each component. When our office is contacted with regard to a repair needed as a result of a mechanical failure the part must be listed for a claim to be initiated. Please see item 1 under the referenced section WHAT IS NOT COVERED which begins: “1. Any parts not listed under covered parts.” The March 7, 2013 response specifically addressed repairs for which calls were received by Royal regarding repairs needed. In both instances, the part needed was not listed. Therefore, no claims were initiated. Following the reinstatement of the Contract, as confirmed in the April 8, 2013 letter, our office has received only one (1) call with regard to coverage. That call was received on May 6, 2013 at which time the Complainant contacted our office to inquire as to coverage for a cracked tire rim. She was correctly advised this is not listed for coverage.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.