Royal Administration Services, Inc.

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. I will accept the business response Thank you

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint, call recordings and examined the files at issue. Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from...

[redacted] (the "Vendor") on 6/13/16. At the time of the purchase, the vehicle odometer reading was said to be 80,960. 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. This Contract carries a Validation Period, meaning the Contract was not available for use by the Complainant until such time as thirty (30) days had passed and the vehicle was driven 1,000 miles from the date of purchase and the starting mileage. At that time, the Validation Period would be deemed to have expired making the Contract active. At the time the claim in question was initiated on 7/29/16, the odometer reading was 87,318. The Complainant had driven the vehicle 5,358 miles over a period of 26 days AFTER meeting the Validation. Upon receipt of this complaint, all available information was again reviewed. Several additional steps have now been taken which included the close examination of a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) released by the vehicle manufacturer which may have been applicable to the vehicle breakdown, further conversation with the Complainant and, verification that the vehicle still remains unrepaired at the repair facility (the “RF”). Although the findings of the independent third party inspector as supported by photographs indicate conditions that generally happen as a result of normal wear and tear of a vehicle, the TSB indicates the cause of this breakdown may be a failed pressure control solenoid. As it cannot be determined when this may have occurred, the decision has been made to reverse the denial and approve the claim. The adjudication process has been completed and the RF notified accordingly. Upon completion of the repair, the RF or the Complainant may submit the necessary documentation and payment will be issued. 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], LLC (the “Vendor”) on 4/10/2014.  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 terms and conditions.The Vendor is a completely separate company and their business status does not impact the status of the Contract. It is Royal’s responsibility to serve as the administrator regardless of the status of the Vendor.  As such, the Contract is Active and available for use until such time it expires by time or mileage (whichever occurs first) or in the event the Complainant submits a written request to cancel the coverage.Please note a claim was approved on 12/17/15 in the amount of $1283.14.  Based on the Cancellation Clause, if the Complainant chooses to cancel the Contract the cancellation would be pro-rated less any claims which would result in no refund. It would therefore seem more prudent for the Complainant to retain the Contract until it expires by time (6/8/2019) or mileage (184,637) as it would continue to be available in the event of a failure of a part listed for coverage.  Should he wish to discuss this matter, he may contact our office directly at [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, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue.  Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Select coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted], LLC (the “Vendor”) on 4/10/2014. 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 terms and conditions.  The Vendor is a completely separate company and their business status does not impact the status of the Contract. It is Royal’s responsibility to serve as the administrator regardless of the status of the Vendor. As such, the Contract is Active and available for use until such time it expires by time or mileage (whichever occurs first) or in the event the Complainant submits a written request to cancel the coverage.  Please note a claim was approved on 12/17/15 in the amount of $1283.14. Based on the Cancellation Clause, if the Complainant chooses to cancel the Contract the cancellation would be pro-rated less any claims which would result in no refund.  It would therefore seem more prudent for the Complainant to retain the Contract until it expires by time (6/8/2019) or mileage (184,637) as it would continue to be available in the event of a failure of a part listed for coverage. Should he wish to discuss this matter, he may contact our office directly at [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, 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 2/12/16. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. ("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. The Contract is “part specific” in that it lists every part that is available for coverage. If the part is not specifically listed then coverage is not available. Reference is made to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 2 which clearly states “2. Any parts not listed.” On 4/8/16 a representative from RMA Body Shop, the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our office regarding the problems with the vehicle. The Complainant was present at the time of the call. The Claims Intake Representative was quite clear when she spoke to the Complainant that the parts were not listed. She advised the claim was being initiated to have a Claims Adjuster review. But this did not mean the claim would be approved. Contributing to the decision to initiate the claim despite concerns that the items were not listed was that the RF did not have the complete information. This included, but was not limited to, the part numbers, prices, and labor time to complete the repairs. Once the additional information was secured on 4/22/16, it became apparent the repairs would not be covered and the claim was subsequently denied. The Complainant accurately included in his statement all of the parts indicated for coverage under the ELECTRICAL component. The statement begins “The following components are covered:” A review of the listed components does not include the Antenna Amplifier or the Signal Acquisition Module. As such, this falls under the Contract reference above. These are not listed and as such are not covered. 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 3/30/2015 at which time the mileage was reported as 102,130. 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 be advised that Royal has been in direct contact with the Complainant. As a result of that communication, we anticipate reaching an amiable agreement 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 the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage...

plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 8/20/15 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 141,050.  As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. ("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract.  The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions.  On 5/11/16, at or about 9:48:53amET our office received a call from [redacted], a representative of [redacted], the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF").  [redacted] advised the vehicle was in need of a timing chain, timing chain tensioner, front cover gasket and a camshaft gear at which time a claim was initiated.   In accordance with standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to verify the reported part failure(s) and, to determine the cause of said failure(s).   The inspector found the tensioner on the left side had been removed which allowed him to see where the gasket had blown out allowing oil to bypass dropping the engine oil pressure.  Although the RF stated the oil pump failed there was no such failure demonstrated to the inspector.  There is a lack of oil which is the result of the failed gasket allowing the oil to leak out causing a lack of lubrication to the engine components.   The Contract states gaskets are covered only in conjunction with a covered repair.  The failure of timing chain tensioner gasket alone is not covered and any consequential damage resulting from that failure is also not covered.  Please see the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 15 which begins: “15. Any repair or replacement of a covered component when the Breakdown is caused by the Breakdown of a non-covered component, ….”  Royal does not now or at any time participate in the sale of these programs.  The Complainant references a discussion with a representative of [redacted] to which Royal was not involved.  As such, Royal will not comment on that communication.  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 8/20/15 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 141,050. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. ("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. On 5/11/16, at or about 9:48:53amET our office received a call from [redacted], a representative of [redacted], the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF"). [redacted] advised the vehicle was in need of a timing chain, timing chain tensioner, front cover gasket and a camshaft gear at which time a claim was initiated. In accordance with standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to verify the reported part failure(s) and, to determine the cause of said failure(s). The inspector found the tensioner on the left side had been removed which allowed him to see where the gasket had blown out allowing oil to bypass dropping the engine oil pressure. Although the RF stated the oil pump failed there was no such failure demonstrated to the inspector. There is a lack of oil which is the result of the failed gasket allowing the oil to leak out causing a lack of lubrication to the engine components. The Contract states gaskets are covered only in conjunction with a covered repair. The failure of timing chain tensioner gasket alone is not covered and any consequential damage resulting from that failure is also not covered. Please see the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 15 which begins: “15. Any repair or replacement of a covered component when the Breakdown is caused by the Breakdown of a non-covered component, ….” Royal does not now or at any time participate in the sale of these programs. The Complainant references a discussion with a representative of [redacted] to which Royal was not involved. As such, Royal will not comment on that communication. 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, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue. Our previous response addressed the Complainant’s concern that a representative hung up and did not receive a return call.   The information provided was secured by listening to the recorded call and checking all records pertaining to that call.  With regard to her request to cancel the Contract, this was completed on 9/25/15 with an effective date of 9/16/15.  A refund representing 33.15% of the purchase price less the $50 cancellation fee was processed.  Our check was mailed to [redacted] (the”Dealer”), the automobile dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the Contract, on 10/1/15. As explained, the Dealer is responsible to issue the refund to the Complainant.  Based on the information received regarding the purchase price of the Contract, the amount of her refund from the Dealer should be $566.54.  The Complainant should contact the Dealer directly to secure her refund. 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, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue.  Our previous response addressed the Complainant’s concern that a representative hung up and did not receive a return call. The information provided was secured by listening to the recorded call and checking all records pertaining to that call.  With regard to her request to cancel the Contract, this was completed on 9/25/15 with an effective date of 9/16/15. A refund representing 33.15% of the purchase price less the $50 cancellation fee was processed. Our check was mailed to [redacted] (the”Dealer”), the automobile dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the Contract, on 10/1/15.  As explained, the Dealer is responsible to issue the refund to the Complainant. Based on the information received regarding the purchase price of the Contract, the amount of her refund from the Dealer should be $566.54. The Complainant should contact the Dealer directly to secure her refund.  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, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue.  Our previous response addressed the Complainant’s concern that a representative hung up and did not receive a return call. The information provided was secured by listening to the recorded call and checking all records pertaining to that call.  With regard to her request to cancel the Contract, this was completed on 9/25/15 with an effective date of 9/16/15. A refund representing 33.15% of the purchase price less the $50 cancellation fee was processed. Our check was mailed to [redacted] (the”Dealer”), the automobile dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the Contract, on 10/1/15.  As explained, the Dealer is responsible to issue the refund to the Complainant. Based on the information received regarding the purchase price of the Contract, the amount of her refund from the Dealer should be $566.54. The Complainant should contact the Dealer directly to secure her refund.  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.  The Complainant is not the listed owner of the Vehicle Service Contract but rather, it is...

his wife, [redacted]. For the purposes of this response, the “Complainant” will be deemed to represent both parties.  Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 4/6/2015 at which time the mileage was reported as 121,308. 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 time and mileage from the date of purchase. The length of the Validation Period is thirty (30) days AND 1,000 miles. Coverage is available upon expiration of the Validation Period.  On 7/1/2015 Royal was contacted by a representative of [redacted], the selected repair facility (the “RF”) of the Complainant. A claim was initiated at that time for the gear selector switch. During the course of the adjudication process, it was determined the failure code reported by the vehicle computer had taken place when the vehicle mileage was 122,156.  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 Validation Period expiration by miles was to be 122,308 as such, the failure of the gear selector switch occurred during the Validation Period resulting in denial of the claim.  The RF contacted our office on 7/23/15 at 12:17:53pm ET at which time a claim was initiated to replace the vehicle transmission. In accordance with standard procedure an independent inspector was dispatched to verify the failure of the transmission and determine the cause of said failure.  Unfortunately, the findings of the independent inspector did not confirm a failure to the transmission. The vehicle history indicated the failure code of [redacted] EGS: Ratio monitoring, clutch E was set at 198,414 miles. As is standard practice, the code was cleared after which the vehicle was driven. If the code comes back further diagnostics would be needed to determine the actual failure. The code did not come back and no failure was demonstrated. As such, the claim was denied on 7/27/15.  On 8/31/15, more than one month after rendering the decision, the Complainant contacted our office at 12:54:09pm ET to discuss the denial of the claim. The Claims Adjuster was unavailable to speak with the Complainant at that time but did return the call and left a message advising the Complainant that due to the time that had passed, a new claim would need to be started. It was suggested that the vehicle be taken to a repair facility that specializes in transmissions so that if it became necessary, the transmission could be torn down to the point where the failure was visible and determinable.  Upon receipt of the letter referenced by the Complainant, the Claims Manager called him on 9/3/15 at 5:33:57pmET. During the course of that conversation it was requested that the receipt for the work done as it related to the previous claim and the transmission service completed in June, 2015 be submitted. There was discussion as to the inspector’s findings, the symptoms the Complainant had experienced with the vehicle, the possible electrical issues and, a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) issued by [redacted] that may be related to the problem.  The Claims Manager advised the need to review the service records, verification that [redacted] had acted upon the TSB and the need for the actual failure to be identified. The RF was requesting the replacement of the entire transmission which had not been shown to be needed. All information is more indicative of an electrical problem.  Although Royal has received the requested service records, there is nothing further that can be done until there is confirmation that the TSB action was completed or the problem being experienced has been determined to be unrelated.  Once again, it is suggested the vehicle be taken to a transmission specialist at which time our office should be contacted so that a new claim may be initiated.  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. 
Regards,
[redacted]

In need the following information in order to file a complaint for you:Your full name address phoneSame for the business *Brief description of what the problem is**Your desired settlement**Date of purchase & date problem first occurred**Monetary: Amount paid and amount in dispute*Thank you...

and I will submit this for you as soon as you can that back to meHave a very nice day

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced. As the Complainant has provided no additional comments, please refer to our letter dated June 26, 2015 for a detailed response regarding 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 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, the Complainant purchased the Contract from [redacted] (the “Vendor”). As an Administrator, Royal, was not then or at any time involved in the sales process. Royal is responsible for the proper administration of all claims in accordance to the terms and conditions set forth in the Contract.  After agreeing to the purchase of the Contract, a fulfillment package was sent to the Complainant which included the complete terms and conditions of the Contract. There is a reasonable expectation that the Complainant would have read the documents provided which include detailed information regarding Roadside Assistance, Rental, the Administrator’s determination as it pertains to a tear down and, costs associated with said tear-down.  Please refer to the section titled PLAN COVEREAGE, subsection BENEFITS (Included with all Plans), item 1, 24 Hour Roadside Assistance which states in part: “Your Vehicle will be covered for up to ten (10) occurrences over the term of Your Service Contract. Towing benefits are provided for up to a maximum of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per occurrence.” Item 2, Rental Benefit states the following: “Rental reimbursement will only be approved for an authorized repair, beginning on the claim submission date. Reimbursement for a rental vehicle provided for a maximum of $35.00 per day, up to a maximum of 5 days. Any authorized repair which requires the Vehicle to be left at a repair facility will qualify for one (1) day of rental reimbursement. Parts delays will qualify for up to three (3) days of rental reimbursement. Delays for inspection required by the Administrator qualify for up to one (1) day of rental reimbursement. In no case will delays caused by parts or inspections increase the maximum limit of 5 days.”  Turning to the section titled IF YOUR VEHICLE INCURS A BREAKDOWN, number 2, item A addresses diagnosis, the tear-down and costs associated with same: “Obtain Your authorization to diagnose the cause of Breakdown and cost of the repair. It is Your responsibility to ensure the cause of the Breakdown is properly diagnosed. If the claim is approved, the reasonable cost of the diagnosis (as determined by the Administrator) will be paid by the Administrator, for up to one hour.  The Administrator will determine if a tear-down is necessary to confirm the cause of the Breakdown and if it is covered under the terms of this Service Contract. The Administrator will also determine the extent of the tear-down that is necessary. “Necessary” shall be deemed to be the point where the damage is visible or determinable. You are responsible for authorizing the repair facility to complete the tear-down. The reasonable cost of the authorized tear-down will only be paid by the Administrator if the claim is approved.” The claim in question was amended to provide additional monetary assistance to the Complainant. The final amount paid to the Complainant’s selected repair facility on 12/8/15 was $3,137.04. 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 Sentinel coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/25/2014. 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 terms and conditions.  On 9/25/15 our office was contacted by a representative of [redacted] (the “RF”) who advised of repairs needed to the vehicle. As is standard practice in a claim of this nature, an independent inspection was ordered. The inspector does not make the decision with regard to coverage, his role is to verify the reported failure and determine the cause of said failure. His findings are reported to a Royal Claims Adjuster accompanied by photographs to support the findings.  In this instance, the inspector verified failure to the timing tensioner gasket. A review of the coverage provided indicates that “Seals & gaskets are covered only if required in conjunction with a Covered Repair. Leaking seals or gaskets are not covered.” As only the gasket failure was found, the claim was properly denied.  On 10/5/15 the Complainant contacted our office to discuss the findings. He reported the information provided to him by the RF with regard to the inspector’s behavior, as well as, his disagreement with the inspector’s findings. As previously stated, the inspector is independent in that he is employed by an Inspection Agency. The Complainant’s concerns have been forwarded to that agency.  In an effort to assist the Complainant, he was advised that the decision would be reviewed by our Technical Consulting firm. A representative of that firm (the “TCR”) has made multiple attempts to reach the Complainant to review his concerns and discuss the findings. The Complainant was not available and, to date has not returned the TCR’s call.  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.

Not only did Royal Admin contact the car dealer and tell them I was bad mouthing them (which is extremely unprofessional and untrue) My Revdex.com complaint was against Royal not the car dealer. Royal Admin also did not refund the car dealer $566 the refunded the dealer $301. Royal AdminRegards,
[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. According to records maintained in the ordinary course of business, [redacted]) (the...

“Customer”) purchased the Service Contract on or about October 24, 2014. The Service Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to, terms and conditions regarding coverages and exclusions. At the time of the sale, the Customer’s vehicle had 88,297 miles.On February 2, 2015 (Monday), we received a call from a representative from [redacted] (the “Repair Facility”) to initiate a claim on the Customer’s behalf. The Repair Facility stated that there was a noise in the rear of the vehicle which became louder upon acceleration. According to the Repair Facility, the diagnosis they performed indicated that the pinion bearing had failed, which subsequently caused “a domino effect” of damage. The Repair Facility specifically stated that they could not confirm any previous repair work having been completed to the drive axle of the vehicle. At that time, the Claim was initiated and we advised the Repair Facility that an independent inspector would be dispatched to verify the cause and extent of the failure. We advised that the vehicle would need to be torn down to the point of failure and that the Customer would need to approve the tear down. We did not receive confirmation of that fact until February 6, 2015 (Friday). At that time, an inspector was immediately dispatched and the inspection completed on February 9, 2015 (the following Monday). A copy of the inspection report (the “Report”) has been provided for your convenience.  We also requested that the Customer provide a copy of all maintenance records for the vehicle. The Customer provided the enclosed summary pages, but not maintenance records (the “Records”) which showed, among other things, that the vehicle had a previous drive/axle concern or issue just prior to the purchase of the Service Contract. The problem was diagnosed on July 28, 2014 when the vehicle had 84,149 miles, approximately 3 months and 4,148 miles before the Service Contract was purchased. We have received no verification that the issue was corrected.Upon review of the Report, we determined that damage was ultimately caused by the failed pinion bearing cage, which in turn caused all the subsequent failures seen by the Repair Facility and the inspector. However, the extent of the damage was both excessive and long-term. This type and extent of damage usually takes approximately 5,000 miles to manifest after an initial failure. At the time of the Claim, the vehicle had been driven for 1,653 miles. Given this information, we determined that the evidence provided was consistent with a failure occurring on or around the July 28, 2014 service, as the Customer would have driven approximately 5,653 miles from that time.Given this information, we determined that the Claim was denied for two reasons: (1) failure to protect the vehicle from further damage after a failure, and (2) a condition which occurred prior to the purchase of the Service Contract. Both of these are explicitly excluded from coverage under the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract.We advised the Customer of this on multiple occasions, both verbally and in writing.Lastly, the Customer has stated she had a previous service contract through [redacted] We cannot speak to what may or may have been covered under that service contract, but if the issue with the drive/axle was repaired and covered by Fidelity Warranty, we would recommend she seek reimbursement from them directly since it is a continuation of that claim and/or repair.Our office has at all times acted in good faith and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Service Contract, none of which have been waived, and in fact are specifically reserved. All rights and defenses under the Service Contract are hereby reserved, as are all defenses available pursuant to 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 4/11/2014. Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Policy. The Policy is at all times subject to its terms and conditions.  It is unfortunate that the adjudication of the recent claim was delayed. Many of the issues raised in the Complainant’s “Statement of the Problem” were discussed with him during telephone conversations which occurred after the file date indicated on the Complaint. Responsibility for these delays falls not only on Royal but also on the part supplier and the repair facility.  Our records indicate the Complainant was previously reimbursed $105.00 toward his rental costs. Check #7632 was issued on 1/21/16 and mailed the following day. This represents the maximum amount as stated in the Contract.  At this time, an additional reimbursement of $253.97 will be issued thus bringing the total rental reimbursement to that requested of $358.97. This check should be issued and mailed within the next few business days.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Policy. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Policy, 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 my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted]. There was never any mention of my questions to [redacted] in their reason for rejecting my claim to have my engine repaired/replaced, which could have been easily explained as simple and hypothetical inquiries. [redacted]My mechanic had mentioned the SLIGHT leak and suggested that there was no reason to worry, since gaskets on older engines often do leak, with no internal issues and can run “forever like that”. So long as there is no significant loss of oil between oil changes, which we continuously checked and there was not, we determined that to tear down the engine unnecessarily, could potentially do MORE harm, than leaving it alone. Also, when I inquired about the tear down with [redacted], as well as reviewing the Royal contract, the mechanic soon realized that since in his expert opinion, there was nothing significantly wrong with the engine itself, for me to incur the expense did not make sense. I personally, know nothing about cars and trust his suggestions, as I have for more than 10 years. I followed his advice in this matter and continue to believe that he was correct.Unfortunately, while there was a failure within, there is still no proof that the slight oil leak was the sole cause (since the engine was FULL of oil at the time of the failure). I religiously maintain my vehicles and address what needs to be repaired as soon as they occur. THIS TIME WAS NO DIFFERENT.I have spoken with my mechanic at length and we both feel strongly that Royal is factually wrong with their decision. HOWEVER, considering the time this has taken to get to this point, even if I rejected their response and won in arbitration, the cost of continuing to pay for the contract for another 18 months would not be worth the aggravation. I would be better off using the money toward another vehicle.Not to mention the fact that there would be no way that I could trust this company in the future is reason enough for me to close this chapter.I understand that by choosing to SELECT “accept the business response” that my complaint will be closed as resolved, even though I do in fact REJECT their response. 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 Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”)...

from [redacted] dba [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 2/14/2015. 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. On 1/8/16 our office was contacted by a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”), who the vehicle’s transmission needed a new clutch pack. As is standard practice in the event of a claim of this nature, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to verify the failure and determine the cause of same. The result of the initial inspection confirmed an internal failure to the transmission. However, the cause of the failure could not be determined as the transmission had not been disassembled to the point where the failure was visible or determinable. As such, the RF and the Complainant were both advised of the need for the tear down of the transmission. On 1/18/16 during the course of a telephone conversation with the Complainant it was stated the RF could remove the paddle clutch kit as this is what the RF believes to be the point of failure. The Adjuster later contacted the RF and unable to speak with the representative left a voicemail message advising the transmission coverage under the Contract is for internally lubricated parts. If, in fact, the dual clutch assembly is the failed component it is not internally lubricated and would not be covered.  Having not received any further communication from the RF, the claim was Administratively Closed on 1/19/16. In the event the disassembly of the transmission is completed, the claim will be reopened and a second inspector dispatched. If the RF confirms the failure is the dual clutch assembly, no further action will be required.Our records show the Complainant contacted our office on 1/27/16 with regard to cancellation of the Contract. In accordance to the Contract, the Complainant was referred to the Vendor.  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] on 6/30/14.  As stated in the Contract, [redacted], Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract.  The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. On 1/29/16, at or about 1:20pm, 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.  The claims adjuster contacted the RF a short time later to discuss the concern.  During the course of that conversation, the RF advised there was a rod bearing knock and a rear main seal leak.  In accordance to standard operating procedure, the adjuster requested maintenance records be provided and, that the RF secure authorization from the Complainant to remove all the rod caps and bearings for inspection. An independent third party inspector was subsequently dispatched to the RF.  The inspection revealed several bearings showed wear and scoring.  In addition, the crank case is darkened.  These findings coupled with the moderate rear main seal leak indicate a lack of proper level of lubrication to the engine which caused the failure. The Contract clearly excludes coverage in the event a failure is caused by a “lack of proper and necessary amount of coolants or lubricants”.   As such, the claim was denied. Following conversation with the Complainant’s father and review of the maintenance records, it has been decided that a second inspection will be conducted.  Once that is complete, all information will again be reviewed and a final claim decision will be rendered. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract.  [redacted], 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 lawThis 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] on 6/30/14. As stated in the Contract, [redacted], Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions.  On 1/29/16, at or about 1:20pm, 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. The claims adjuster contacted the RF a short time later to discuss the concern.  During the course of that conversation, the RF advised there was a rod bearing knock and a rear main seal leak. In accordance to standard operating procedure, the adjuster requested maintenance records be provided and, that the RF secure authorization from the Complainant to remove all the rod caps and bearings for inspection.  An independent third party inspector was subsequently dispatched to the RF. The inspection revealed several bearings showed wear and scoring. In addition, the crank case is darkened. These findings coupled with the moderate rear main seal leak indicate a lack of proper level of lubrication to the engine which caused the failure.  The Contract clearly excludes coverage in the event a failure is caused by a “lack of proper and necessary amount of coolants or lubricants”. As such, the claim was denied.  Following conversation with the Complainant’s father and review of the maintenance records, it has been decided that a second inspection will be conducted. Once that is complete, all information will again be reviewed and a final claim decision will be rendered.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. [redacted], 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. I have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.  Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the...

“Vendor”) on 8/8/2014 at which time the odometer reading was reported as 149,435. The Contract carries a Validation Period of thirty (30) days and 1,000 miles. Both the time and mileage must be met before the Contract is available for use by the Contract Holder.  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 or about 5/20/15 our office received a call from a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”). Royal was advised the vehicle odometer reading was 164,615 and that it needed to have the transmission replaced. A claim was initiated.  In accordance with standard operating procedures, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF for the purpose of verifying the failure of the transmission and determining the cause of said failure. The result of the inspection confirmed an internal failure to the transmission.  To complete the adjudication process it was required that the Complainant provide our office with maintenance records to show the vehicle has been properly maintained in accordance with the Manufacturer’s Recommendations for his vehicle. These records were requested on or about 5/22/15.  Please refer to the Contract section titled CONTRACT HOLDER’S RESPONSIBILITIES:” item 2 “VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Properly Maintain Your Vehicle and KEEP THE RECEIPTS” specifically subsection “Maintenance Requirements:” items a and b which read as follows:  “a. You must have Your Vehicle checked and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, as outlined in the Owner’s Manual for Your Vehicle.” “b. It is required that You retain “Proof” of maintenance for the service and/or repair work performed on Your Vehicle, regardless if the work was performed by You or a repair facility. “Proof” means repair orders from a licensed repair facility and/or a self-maintained maintenance log that has corresponding “purchase receipts” for oil and filter, coolant and brake system flush, etc. Pertinent information must be furnished to identify the Vehicle and the repairs performed, such as the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), date, mileage, parts and labor.”        In this case, the manufacturer recommends the transmission be serviced every 50,000 miles. Given the claim was initiated with the vehicle mileage reported as 164,615 miles, a transmission service should have been completed at or about 150,000 miles.  Initially, the claim was administratively closed as no maintenance records were received as of 5/27/15. However, on 5/28/15 Royal received two (2) service records the Complainant had submitted to the Vendor. One of the invoices provided was Work Order #[redacted] dated 8/19/2014 at which time the mileage was reported as 150,381. Under the section titled “Comments” it states “AUTO TRANS CONCERN”. No additional information was provided.  Based on the fact there was an initial transmission concern reported to the RF on 8/19/2014 when the reported mileage was 150,381, the Validation Period had not yet been met at that time thus no coverage was available. It would also appear that despite a transmission concern, the vehicle was driven 14,234 miles before the problem was reported to our office.  Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, items 13 and 5. 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; or which occurs during the Validation Period.”Item 5 states in part: “5. Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, …and/or failure to protect Your Vehicle from further damage when a Breakdown has occurred.”  In this case, the Complainant was aware of a transmission problem “during the Validation Period” and did not take action at that time to resolve said problem. Had he done so, it may have prevented the need to replace the transmission. The decision to deny the claim based on either of the referenced items is correct.  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.