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 that the Complainant purchased the Royal’s Shield Ultimate coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 11/17/2014. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. Royal was not then nor has ever been a participant in the sale of the Contract and cannot comment on any communication between the Complainant and the Vendor at the time of the purchase. The Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. On or about 8/24/2015 our office received a call from the Complainant inquiring as to the process to cancel the Contract. Due to the fact the Vendor was no longer in business she was directed to submit her written request directly to Royal. This was received on or about 9/14/2015 and the Contract was cancelled.  At the time of purchase, the Complainant agreed to a payment plan through a lending institution, [redacted] Payment Plans (“[redacted]”). All funds received by Royal came directly from [redacted] thus, in accordance with the Contract when the cancellation was completed, the refund check representing the pro-rate of 86.08% less the cancellation fee was made payable to [redacted].  Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND beginning with the second paragraph (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator received. The Vendor agrees to pays its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor received. In the event a refund is due upon the cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund due. Vendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include bot the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due.”  The Registration Page and this Service Contract constitute the entire agreement between You and the Provider and no other documents are legal and binding unless provided to You by the Administrator or Provider.  If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.”  As stated, the Vendor is responsible to remit to the Complainant the full refund due. It is unfortunate that the Vendor is no longer in business. The only suggestion we can make at this time is for the Complainant to dispute the charges with her Credit Card or Bank from which the down payment and monthly payments were secured.  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 again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.   Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield Preferred coverage...

plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 1/12/2016 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 81,733.  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.  A review of the claim in question indicates after further review, approval was provided on 4/27/16 for the replacement of the torque converter.  Payment was issued to [redacted] on 5/9/16 in the amount of $1,758.40.   In addition, reimbursement for a rental vehicle was mailed to the Complainant on 5/11/16.  As the administrator, Royal is required to make effort to identify the failure and cause of same.  In the case of a transmission, knowing there is an internal failure is not sufficient which then often results in the necessity of tear-down to the point where the failure is visible or determinable.   We do acknowledge the Complainant’s frustration with the adjudication process and apologize for any inconvenience.  His comments are appreciated.  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 again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue. Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield Preferred coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 1/12/2016 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 81,733. 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. A review of the claim in question indicates after further review, approval was provided on 4/27/16 for the replacement of the torque converter. Payment was issued to [redacted] on 5/9/16 in the amount of $1,758.40. In addition, reimbursement for a rental vehicle was mailed to the Complainant on 5/11/16. As the administrator, Royal is required to make effort to identify the failure and cause of same. In the case of a transmission, knowing there is an internal failure is not sufficient which then often results in the necessity of tear-down to the point where the failure is visible or determinable. We do acknowledge the Complainant’s frustration with the adjudication process and apologize for any inconvenience. His comments are appreciated. 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 Select coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 5/31/13.  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 2/3/16, at 10:42:03am ET out a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our office.  As a result of that conversation, a claim was initiated with regard to an engine concern.  In accordance to standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF.  The purpose of the inspection was to verify the actual failure(s) and to determine the cause of said failure(s).  The result of the inspection confirmed a material failure of the #2 exhaust valve.  The condition of the exhaust valve indicates this failure is due to extreme temperature causing the exhaust valve to overheat which is evident by the corner of the valve being burnt off.    The Adjuster notified the RF of the inspector’s findings.  In the recorded conversation with the RF, although there was discussion of reasons a failure such as this may occur, the RF was unable to explain the obvious condition of a piece missing and burnt edging of the exhaust valve.  The Complainant spoke with our office on 2/11/16 with regard to the denial of coverage.  In his recorded conversation with a Customer Service Representative and then with a Supervisor, details related to the inspector’s findings were communicated which support the cause of the failure as that of an over heat condition.  Unfortunately, in this instance the cause of the failed exhaust valve excludes coverage.  As such the claim was properly denied and 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 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 coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 5/31/13. 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 2/3/16, at 10:42:03am ET out a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our office. As a result of that conversation, a claim was initiated with regard to an engine concern.  In accordance to standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF. The purpose of the inspection was to verify the actual failure(s) and to determine the cause of said failure(s).  The result of the inspection confirmed a material failure of the #2 exhaust valve. The condition of the exhaust valve indicates this failure is due to extreme temperature causing the exhaust valve to overheat which is evident by the corner of the valve being burnt off. The Adjuster notified the RF of the inspector’s findings. In the recorded conversation with the RF, although there was discussion of reasons a failure such as this may occur, the RF was unable to explain the obvious condition of a piece missing and burnt edging of the exhaust valve.  The Complainant spoke with our office on 2/11/16 with regard to the denial of coverage. In his recorded conversation with a Customer Service Representative and then with a Supervisor, details related to the inspector’s findings were communicated which support the cause of the failure as that of an over heat condition.  Unfortunately, in this instance the cause of the failed exhaust valve excludes coverage. As such the claim was properly denied and 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 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 Peoples Vehicle Protection Premier coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) on 1/6/2014 from [redacted] (the “Dealer”). 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. Please note the Contract is what is commonly referred to as “Part Specific” in that only those components and/or parts listed under the coverage section may be considered. If a part is not listed it cannot be covered. In addition, the Contract was purchased with a $250 deductible per claim which is subtracted from the approved amount leaving the balance to be paid by Royal. The Complainant did not provide any specific information so all claim activity since inception of the Contract has been reviewed. There have been four (4) claims initiated on behalf of the Complainant, all of which have been approved. It is believed that it is the most recent claim for which the Complainant may be referring. On or about 2/5/2015 our office received a call from the Complainant’s selected repair facility, [redacted] (the “RF”), at which time a claim was initiated for the power steering pump. The RF stated the cost of the part was to be $173.97, power steering fluid would be needed at a cost of $35.00 and it would take 1.2 hours (at the posted labor rate of $95.00 per hour) to complete the repair. Based on the tax rate of 6.35% for both parts and labor, the RF estimated cost of the repair was $343.47. In the normal course of claim adjudication, it was determined a new power steering pump was readily available through the aftermarket company, Advance Auto, priced at $62.45 and the fluid cost was $5.39. The labor time of 1.2 hours was confirmed however, this was to be priced at the maximum per the Contract of $85.00 per hour. Adding the appropriate taxes, the total of the approved claim is $180.62. As this is less than the Complainant’s $250 deductible, the claim was approved but there are not funds owed from Royal. Please refer to the Contract section titled BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS, specifically the segment which begins with the highlighted statement: “Damaged parts may be replaced, depending upon availability, with like quality (LKQ), used, rebuilt, remanufactured, or new parts. The Administrator at all times reserves the right to select the method of repair. Dollar amount of authorization will be based on selected method of repair.” Next, please see the information regarding the labor rate regarding the $85.00 per hour: “Labor: Labor time-capsules will be determined by a current nationally published flat-rate manual. Labor costs for authorized repairs will be based on the posted lablr rate of the licensed repair facility but in no event will exceed $85.00 per hour.”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. 
I contacted [redacted] plan and they deny receiving the money or refund. Please provide proof that a refund was issued and received so that I can forward it to the Attorney General of MD concerning The [redacted]{Vendor}. I am also requesting that Royal contact the [redacted], because I have been unsuccessful and the Attorney General of MD too. IF Royal is really concerned  they will provide the name and phone # of who they talked to at [redacted] , because again I have been unable to via phone , email or phone messages.

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 [redacted] (the “Contract”) from [redacted]...

(the “Vendor”) on 4/15/2015 at which time the mileage was reported as 97,138. The Contract carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and 1000 miles. The Contract is available for use once both criterions are met. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract which is backed by [redacted]. The Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions.On 6/17/15, our office received a call from [redacted] the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) who advised the vehicle had been towed in with a dead battery, low engine compression and found the timing chain tensioners to be broken. The mileage was reported as 98,373. Given the Validation Period had been met a claim was initiated. Due to the nature of the repairs the RF was advised maintenance records would be requested. In accordance with standard operating procedures, a Car Fax was run on the vehicle; a request was made for a copy of the vehicle registration and a third party independent inspector was dispatched to the RF. The inspector was sent for the purpose of verifying the failures and to determine the cause of said failures. A review of the inspector’s report and supporting photographs found the left primary plastic guide chain was missing. The chain had been rubbing on the metal mounting which showed gouges and the right lower primary chain guide was broken in to pieces. The tensioner showed major wear and all other chain guides showed grooved wear. The timing cover has heavy varnish present. All of these findings indicate the failures occurred over a long period of time. Based on the fact the vehicle had been driven only 235 miles after the Validation Period was met (98,373 – 97,138 = 1235 – 1000 validation miles = 235), it is apparent the failure occurred before the Contract was available for use. The claim was denied and the RF contacted on 6/22/15. 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 RF returned our call on 6/23/15 at or about 9:15amET and was advised of the decision. Shortly thereafter the Complainant made the first of several calls to Royal to inquire as to the denial reason. It is unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding by the staff when reviewing the adjuster’s notes and she was, in fact, provided with incorrect information regarding this matter. On 6/24/15 the Director of Operations returned her call, apologized for the errors and explained in detail the reason for the claim denial. Based on information provided by the Complainant which had not previously been discussed by her selected RF, the decision was reviewed by the Claims Manager. The Complainant spoke with him on 6/25/15 at which time he advised of his agreement with the original denial. Based on that conversation, the Claims Manager offered to have all information reviewed a third time by our [redacted] (the ‘Tech”). This was done on 6/26/15 after which the Tech contacted the Complainant and explained the decision and confirmed the failure to the vehicle would not have occurred over the driving distance of 235 miles. It should be noted that this last conversation occurred several hours AFTER the Complainant contacted the Revdex.com. In addition, per the written request received from the Complainant, a reference copy of the independent inspector’s report and photographs was emailed to the Complainant on 6/26/15. 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.

I am rejecting the response due to the fact that I never received a copy of the contract from [redacted], Inc. and made several calls to them to retrieve it. At this point it appears that [redacted], Inc. used unethical sales tactics to achieve a high sales percentage. However [redacted], Inc. represented Royal Administration, therefore from my perspective Royal Administration would have the responsibility of rectifying this issue and sending a statement with the terms of a contract that I did not receive at the time of the purchase does not rectify the issue.I am still requesting either a refund for what I have paid into the plan or that my plan be change to Ultimate with a deductible of $100.
Regards,
[redacted]
 
 %3

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. Our office was notified on 3/1/16 that the vehicle was at a new repair facility. Due to a miscommunication in our office the new repair facility was not contacted until 3/7/16. Since that time several conversations have been held with the repair facility, as well as, the Complainant’s father who has been representing her throughout this matter. On 3/8/16 the repair facility confirmed a leak to the rear main seal which is listed for coverage under the contract. The repair facility had not completed its examination of the engine. There is a mutual understanding that if the failure was due to the loss of lubrication resulting from the failed rear main seal, the Contract excludes coverage for the engine. If, upon examination, the repair facility determines the engine failure was NOT caused by this lack of proper lubrication levels then Royal would dispatch an inspector and the decision will be reviewed. The Complainant’s father was contacted on 3/8/16 as well. All of the above information was communicated at that time. We are awaiting further findings from the repair facility. Upon receipt of which will determine any further action with regard to this matter. 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...

[redacted] coverage plan (the “Contract”) on 3/16/16.   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 4/6/16, our office received a call from a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (RF).  All standard information was requested at that time, including the inquiry as to any modifications to the vehicle to which the RF stated there were none.  As is standard practice, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF.  The purpose of the inspection consists of verifying all information provided at the time the claim was started, as well as, confirming the breakdown and determining the cause of said breakdown.   Upon receipt of the inspection report, it was learned that the vehicle had oversize tires which is considered to be a modification.  Unfortunately, any modification to the vehicle excludes coverage.  As such, the claim was denied.  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 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 [redacted] coverage plan (the “Contract”) on 3/16/16. 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 4/6/16, our office received a call from a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (RF). All standard information was requested at that time, including the inquiry as to any modifications to the vehicle to which the RF stated there were none. As is standard practice, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF. The purpose of the inspection consists of verifying all information provided at the time the claim was started, as well as, confirming the breakdown and determining the cause of said breakdown. Upon receipt of the inspection report, it was learned that the vehicle had oversize tires which is considered to be a modification. Unfortunately, any modification to the vehicle excludes coverage. As such, the claim was denied. 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 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 7/30/2015 at which time the mileage was reported as 159,077. 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 10/6/15 at or about 1:30pmET our office received a call from [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”). The representative of the RF advised of a problem with the turbo charger. Given this part is listed for coverage a claim was promptly initiated.  The original decision to deny the claim was based on the findings of an independent inspector, as well as, the mileage on the vehicle once the Contract was available for use. Upon receiving the referenced complaint, the decision has been reviewed and will be reversed. Thus, the claim will be approved.  The Adjuster of the claim left messages for both the Complainant and the RF on 10/29/15 in an effort to secure additional information to complete the approval transaction. To date neither has returned his call. The Adjuster will again reach out to the RF today and the Director of Operations will contact the Complainant. It is expected that this matter will be resolved on behalf of the Complainant shortly.  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] coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Dealer”) on 5/12/2015 at which time the mileage was reported as 124,177. 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 under components 1 through 18 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. On 6/9/15, our office received a call from [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) who advised the vehicle had been driven in to their facility. The Complainant reported the engine light had illuminated and that she had been adding coolant to the radiator which was being pushed out through the overflow tank. Tests conducted by the RF indicated a concern with the head gasket, stating their findings indicated the head may warped or cracked as it is leaking combustion in to the cooling system. The reported mileage was 124,744. The assigned Claims Adjuster (the “Adjuster”) contacted the RF and the Complainant on 6/10/15. During the course of these conversations, the Adjuster explained in accordance with standard operating procedures the vehicle would need to be examined by a third party independent inspector. The purpose of the inspection was to verify the failure and determine the cause of same. Both parties were also told of the possibility that the failure of the head could be pre-existing as the Contract had been in effect for only 28 days and 567 miles since it was purchased. If this was the case, the claim would be denied. In his conversation with the Complainant, the Adjuster explained and the Complainant confirmed her understanding that a head gasket would not fail in this period of time and miles. In the event that the initial inspection did not provide sufficient information there may be a need for a “tear down”. This would be done by the RF with authorization from the Complainant. The purpose of which would be to determine the cause of the failure. The costs of this process would be the Complainant’s should the claim be denied. A review of the inspector’s initial report confirmed the RF’s concern that the head may be cracked or warped. However, without additional tear down a determination as to the actual cause of the failure could not be concluded. With the Complainant’s permission, the RF completed the necessary tear down and a second inspection was conducted. The result of the second inspection and supporting photographs found the cylinder head is warped; there is a coolant leak trail and visible signs of exhaust leakage at the manifold to the cylinder head gasket area. These findings suggest overheating from low coolant and continued operation. This is consistent with the Complainant having reported the need to add coolant. The RF also reported several loose bolts and fasteners were found during the process of the tear down which may be indicative of a previous repair. These findings coupled with the “age” of the Contract (28 days and 567 miles driven) indicate the failure of the head gasket was the result of overheating and likely existed prior to the Contract purchase. As such, the claim was properly denied. Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 5 states in part: “5. Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire …overheating, freezing…” In addition, item 13 states: “13. Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract ….”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, reviewed recorded calls and examined the files at issue. Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the People’s Vehicle Protection Premier...

coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Dealer”) on 5/17/2014. 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.On 1/5/2015 our office received a call from [redacted] of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”). A claim was initiated for the replacement of four (4) fuel injectors and a decoupling element. The RF also inquired as to coverage for a coolant hose and air pressure sensor neither of which is listed for coverage under the Contract. Upon review, the decoupling element is not a listed part so only the fuel injectors were to be considered. In accordance with standard operating procedures, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to the RF for the purpose of verifying the failures and determining the cause of said failures. At the time of the inspection, no failure was demonstrated. The Claims Adjuster (a Certified Master Mechanic) contacted the RF leaving a message advising no current codes, no misfiring at the time of the inspection. It is our understanding that the RF completed a “Test Plan” only. There was no report or results provided for additional testing which would have identified the actual failed part. These tests include a Balance Test, Fuel Drop Test and having “Ohmed” each injector to test the resistance. Without these tests to confirm the actual failed part(s) and no demonstration of failure, we had no alternative but to deny the claim. Notification of that decision was verbally made to the RF on 1/7/15. The decision to remove the vehicle from the RF and continue to drive said vehicle was that of the RF and Complainant. No further communication was received from either party until 5/5/15. At or about 4:15pm ET the RF called our office to advise the vehicle had been towed to their facility. Upon examination, the RF indicated the vehicle needed the engine replaced. As is the standard procedure, the RF was asked to provide the documentation showing the diagnostic codes, their repair cost estimate and vehicle maintenance records for review. The requested documents were received on 5/6/15 and reviewed. The Claims Adjuster contacted the RF and advised an independent inspector would be dispatched to verify the failure and determine the cause. Although the inspection determined there was a failure to the engine, the cause of that failure could not be determined. On 5/7/15, having reviewed the independent inspector’s findings the Adjuster contacted the RF. To determine the cause of the failure, a tear down of the engine would be needed to the point where the failure is visible or determinable. The teardown must be authorized by the Complainant. As is appropriate, the Adjuster advised the RF of the cause of failure was needed to confirm coverage was available to the Complainant under the terms of the Contract. This included pointing out the fact that if the cause of the failure was determined to be related to the fuel injectors, the engine replacement may be denied. In the subsequent conversation with the Complainant, the Adjuster again explained the findings by the inspector did not determine the cause of the failure. He advised the need to determine the cause and the steps needed to do so. Further, he advised the Complainant of the possibility the claim could be denied. As previously stated, there were additional tests that the RF could have run in January to determine IF one or more injectors had failed or if some other part was causing the check engine light to go on intermittently and the engine malfunction light to appear on the navigation screen as reported to be the Complainant’s complaint at that time. In addition, the decision to not make any repairs in January was that of the RF and Complaint. Finally, the engine coverage under the Contract states in part: “…all internal components of the engine block and cylinder heads, if damage is caused by a mechanical failure of an internally lubricated part.” Should the cause of the engine failure be deemed that of failed injectors, it would not be covered as an injector is NOT an internally lubricated part. To be clear, injectors do not require lubrication to operate. At this time, the claim remains in a “pending” status awaiting the notification by the RF that a teardown has been completed and what, if any further findings the RF may report. An independent inspector will again be dispatched and his report and photographs will then be reviewed and a decision rendered. If, however, the Complainant chooses not to authorize the teardown, the claim will be administratively closed as no decision can be made without first determining the cause of the engine failure. 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.

Regards,  untrue their statements.  I have called in three additional times and was told that I did not have a warrantee contract with them.  I have the bills to show that I had the work done anyway although according to my warrantee pamphlet these items were covered.  Each time I asked for a supervisor, was again told I did not have a contract.  I asked to have the companies phone number so I could call in and they would not give it to me.  It is only recently I found the letter that was sent to me from Royal assuring me coverage.  The last time I called it was for calipers, again told I had no coverage, I send in the book it is covered under my premier coverage which I have.  I asked them to look up the last time I called and they did, it was for my emergency brake, which again I was told was not covered nor did I have coverage.  I made these calls from my cell phone where there are records of my call.  I could not get permission for repairs because they refused to acknowledge I had coverage.  
[redacted]
 I have bills, phone records and witnesses.  Plus the letter they they told the Revdex.com they were giving me to have me drop my claim against them..any questions feel free to call ###-###-####

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]

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 Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/2014.  The vehicle, a 2008 [redacted], was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,000 miles.  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.  Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, 2015 and our response.   As the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the Contract.  Given the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage.  As stated in the email response from [redacted], Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the Complainant.  Currently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage plan. Should the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to Royal.  Upon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the Contract.  This means a pro-rated refund will be issued to [redacted], (“[redacted]”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase.   Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator received.  The Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor received.In the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund due.  Vendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due.  … If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the Complainant. The responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Contract.  Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the 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 the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/2014. The vehicle, a 2008 [redacted], was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,000 miles. 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.  Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, 2015 and our response. As the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the Contract. Given the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage.  As stated in the email response from [redacted], Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the Complainant. Currently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage plan.  Should the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to Royal. Upon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the Contract. This means a pro-rated refund will be issued to [redacted], (“[redacted]”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase.  Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator received. The Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor received. In the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund due. Vendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due.  … If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the Complainant. The responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the 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 the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/2014. The vehicle, a 2008 [redacted], was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,000 miles. 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.  Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, 2015 and our response. As the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the Contract. Given the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage.  As stated in the email response from [redacted], Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the Complainant. Currently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage plan.  Should the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to Royal. Upon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the Contract. This means a pro-rated refund will be issued to [redacted]sure Group LLC, (“[redacted]”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase.  Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator received. The Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor received. In the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund due. Vendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due.  … If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the Complainant. The responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the 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 the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/2014. The vehicle, a 2008 [redacted], was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,000 miles. 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.  Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, 2015 and our response. As the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the Contract. Given the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage.  As stated in the email response from [redacted], Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the Complainant. Currently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage plan.  Should the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to Royal. Upon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the Contract. This means a pro-rated refund will be issued to [redacted]sure Group LLC, (“[redacted]”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase.  Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator received. The Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor received. In the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund due. Vendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due.  … If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the Complainant. The responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the 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 Royals Shield Ultimate coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/8/2015.  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 terms and conditions. As stated in the Contract, covered parts may be replaced, at the Administrator’s discretion, with like kind and quality (LKQ), used, rebuilt, remanufactured or new parts.  With regard to the claim referenced by the Complainant, the part was approved based on a new part, readily available through an aftermarket supplier.  In consideration for the fact the Complainant was travelling, the claim authorization has been amended to reflect the part price charged by the repair facility.  In addition, we have extended an additional 0.3 hour for the time needed to diagnose the failure.  This brings the total (with tax) authorized to $594.15 less the Complainant’s $100 deductible resulting in payment of $494.15.  A second check has been processed in the amount of $250.90 which will be mailed to the Complainant bringing the total reimbursement to $494.15. 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 Royals Shield Ultimate coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/8/2015. 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 terms and conditions. As stated in the Contract, covered parts may be replaced, at the Administrator’s discretion, with like kind and quality (LKQ), used, rebuilt, remanufactured or new parts. With regard to the claim referenced by the Complainant, the part was approved based on a new part, readily available through an aftermarket supplier. In consideration for the fact the Complainant was travelling, the claim authorization has been amended to reflect the part price charged by the repair facility. In addition, we have extended an additional 0.3 hour for the time needed to diagnose the failure. This brings the total (with tax) authorized to $594.15 less the Complainant’s $100 deductible resulting in payment of $494.15. A second check has been processed in the amount of $250.90 which will be mailed to the Complainant bringing the total reimbursement to $494.15. 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 Royals Shield Ultimate coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/8/2015. 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 terms and conditions. As stated in the Contract, covered parts may be replaced, at the Administrator’s discretion, with like kind and quality (LKQ), used, rebuilt, remanufactured or new parts. With regard to the claim referenced by the Complainant, the part was approved based on a new part, readily available through an aftermarket supplier. In consideration for the fact the Complainant was travelling, the claim authorization has been amended to reflect the part price charged by the repair facility. In addition, we have extended an additional 0.3 hour for the time needed to diagnose the failure. This brings the total (with tax) authorized to $594.15 less the Complainant’s $100 deductible resulting in payment of $494.15. A second check has been processed in the amount of $250.90 which will be mailed to the Complainant bringing the total reimbursement to $494.15. 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 satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted]. I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved.  Furthermore, I greatly appreciate the prompt response by [redacted] and the resolution thereof.
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 4/8/15. 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. A review of Claim #[redacted] indicates it was initiated on 4/12/16 for the replacement of the right rear axle shaft assembly. An inspection was originally ordered only to be cancelled when it was learned that the Complainant had removed the vehicle from the repair facility (RF). After confirming when the vehicle would be at the RF and available, the inspection was rescheduled for 4/25/16. The findings of the inspector indicate the failure of the axle assembly was the result of rust and corrosion of the axle tone ring. As a failure caused by “rust or corrosion” is excluded from coverage, the claim was properly denied. Reference is made to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 5 which states in part: “5. Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, vandalism, riot, explosion, lightning, earthquake, overheating, freezing, rust or corrosion …. 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 the Complainant purchased the Integrity Automotive Protection OEM coverage plan (the...

"Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 2/28/2012. 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 terms and conditions. After review of all available information, it appears there may have been a misunderstanding when the independent third party inspector contacted the Complainant’s selected repair facility, [redacted], (the “RF”) on 5/27/16 in preparation to examine the vehicle. The inspector reported that the RF advised that the Complainant had approved the repairs to the vehicle and therefore an inspection was not needed. This information was communicated to our office and was interpreted that the vehicle had been repaired. This resulted in the claim being denied as the repairs had not been authorized by our office. Upon review of the Complainant’s call to Royal on 6/3/16 and the text of the complaint Statement of the Problem, it appears the vehicle had NOT yet been repaired on 5/27/16 and that the repair was not completed for several days following the conversation between the inspector and the RF. Our office has reached out to the Complainant to secure a copy of the repair invoice. Upon review, the claim decision will be reviewed. The outcome of that review will be dependent upon all information available, including that provided by the RF prior to the dispatch of the independent inspector. Should the decision be made to reverse the denial, the approval will be subject to the standard adjudication process. 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 a follow up to our response dated 6/13/16. Having received the invoice for repair, Royal issued a reimbursement check to the Complainant in the amount of $2,455.68. Our office received an email from the Complainant’s son stating the following:“Thank you <name removed>,For your attention in this matter involving my father [redacted].You've made him happy with your decision to his case, and in turn, gained a satisfied customer. Respectfully, [redacted]”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, reviewed all recorded calls and, examined the files at issue. Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Roya’s Shield Ultimate plan...

(the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 2/9/2015. 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.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. In addition, the section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED addresses additional circumstances in which coverage is excluded.  On 8/4/2015 at 9:41:22am ET our office received a call from [redacted], a representative of [redacted], the repair facility (the “RF”) selected by the Complainant to have his vehicle serviced. She advised of the concerns with the ABS Speed Sensors and a claim was initiated at that time. In accordance with standard operating procedures, the claim was assigned to an Adjuster who, upon review contacted the RF to secure additional information.  This contact was initiated at 1:01:49pm ET on 8/4/15. [redacted] was unavailable resulting in a voice mail message asking simply that she return the call. That return call was received on 8/6/15, at 3:40:31pm ET. Upon discussing the situation at that time, it was determined that an independent third party inspection was required. The standard turnaround time for an inspection is 24 – 48 business hours followed by an additional day to receive and review the report and photographs. Given the inspector was requested on Thursday 8/6/15 he was at the RF on Friday, 8/7/15 and the report was reviewed the following business day, Monday, 8/10/15. The inspection report and supported by photographs stated the “Failure of left and right front wheel speed sensors due to rust.” The Adjuster contacted the RF on that same day at 9:43:05am ET at which time he explained that the Contract [redacted]ries a stipulation that excludes a failure caused by rust or corrosion. Please refer to items 5 and 20 under the section titled WHAT S NOT COVERED.  The Complainant references the service provided. It is not our intent to delay or cause any inconvenience to the Complainant when adjudicating a claim. In this instance when the RF had not returned his call in a prompt manner, the Adjuster should have tried to reach the RF again rather than waiting. Had this happened, the inspection may have been completed before the weekend. It would not, however, changed the result that the claim was denied due to the finding of rust being the cause of failure. On 8/12/15 at 6:16pm an email was received from the Vendor which contained that which the Complainant had submitted regarding this claim and the service provided. Recognizing the delay referenced above and, as a courtesy to the Complainant, the claim decision was reversed. The claim was approved on 8/13/15 and the RF notified accordingly