Royal Administration Services, Inc.

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above.  I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.   The Complainant has provided an “opinion” by his selected repair facility stating “the axle failure was absolutely NOT the result of rust or corrosion.”   Yet the inspection photographs show the rusted abs axle tone ring.  There was no defect or other cause found by or demonstrated to the independent inspector when he physically examined the vehicle on 4/25/16.  If, in fact, the RF can show there is a mechanical defect that caused the failure of the right rear axle assembly the claim will be reviewed.  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. The Complainant has provided an “opinion” by his selected repair facility stating “the axle failure was absolutely NOT the result of rust or corrosion.” Yet the inspection photographs show the rusted abs axle tone ring. There was no defect or other cause found by or demonstrated to the independent inspector when he physically examined the vehicle on 4/25/16. If, in fact, the RF can show there is a mechanical defect that caused the failure of the right rear axle assembly the claim will be reviewed. 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 Royal Shield Premium coverage plan (the “Contract”) from...

[redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 4/10/15. 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. Please refer to the Contract section titled DEFINITIONS specifically that provided for LABOR which reads as follows (bold added for emphasis): “LABOR: Total labor time for a covered repair will be determined by a current nationally published labor manual. The labor rate for authorized repairs will be based on the posted labor rate of the licensed repair facility that You selected. If the repair facility’s labor rate is not posted the Administrator reserves the right to approve a labor rate based on the average labor rate for similar local repair facilities. Administrator also reserves the right to adjust the approved labor rate if the repair facility’s labor rate is deemed to be excessive by the Administrator when compared to local average labor rates for similar facilities.In addition, please see the section titled TERMS AND CONDITIONS, subsection ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES which states the following (underline added for emphasis): “1. BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS We will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs to repair or replace any Breakdown of a part listed in the Plan Coverage Section, as determined by the Administrator using standard and common industry practices. COVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINISTRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.”Please note that the “current nationally published labor manual” utilized is All Data. All labor time secured using this manual is based on the Complainant’s specific vehicle by entering the Vehicle Identification Number (in its entirety) in to the All Data website. A review of the two (2) claims indicates the adjudication and amount approved was in keeping with the Contract terms and conditions. The first claim, #[redacted], was approved on 8/11/15. The Complainant specifically questioned the amount of oil approved.This claim was approved for the removal and replacement of the ABC Pump. The hydraulic oil amount approved would therefore be based on that needed when completing this repair. In accordance with All Data the amount of hydraulic oil needed for this process is 1 liter. This converts to 1.0566 quarts or 2.11338 pints. The claim included 3.0 pints of oil which was more than the amount required for this repair. Regarding the most recent claim, #[redacted], the Complainant questioned the labor time approved specifically related to the air conditioner compressor. Authorization provided on 3/3/16 included the removal and replacement of the air conditioning compressor, associated o-rings and time to evacuate and recharge the system, a transmission mount and a tensioner pulley. Once again, the labor time was verified using All Data which indicated the time needed to remove and replace the air conditioner compressor for his vehicle is 2.9 hours. Adding the evacuation and recharge brings the total for that repair to 4.3 hours. When the other repairs are included, the total time authorized for the claim is 6.5 hours. As stated by the Complainant, his selected repair facility, [redacted] of [redacted] (the “RF”), did submit documentation indicating the total time needed to remove and replace the compressor as 12 hours. This documentation was NOT that from a “current nationally recognized labor manual” but rather an Operation Items list which itemizes each step of the repair process as if each step was completed as a separate repair rather than a complete replacement of the compressor. In other words, the time to remove and replace each individual item needed rather than the removal of all items and replacement of same. This, in essence, increases the labor time actually needed when removing and replacing all parts for the entire compressor. Upon review of the claim, it was noted that the RF contacted our office on 3/9/16 requesting the receiver drier be added to the claim. In an effort to avoid a delay for an independent inspection to verify the failure of the drier, the RF was asked to provide photographs of the failed part. The RF then advised the drier had not failed. As such, it was not included in the claim. A review of the invoice description of work states in part “When the A/C Compressor is replaced Mercedes requires the A/C Drier be replaced as well.” At this time, our records show the Complainant cancelled the Contract effective 3/15/16 which, although not an excuse, may be the reason no return call was made following his request of 3/11/16. We received two calls that day from the Complainant. The first was received at or about 10am ET during which he was apprised of the claim approval and he inquired as to cancellation. The Complainant was driving so, as a courtesy, his call was transferred to the Vendor to discuss the cancellation process. It was during the second call received at or about 11amET that he asked to speak to a Manager. None was available and a request was submitted for a return call. I do apologize the Complainant was not called. The decision not to return the Complainant’s call has been addressed with the assigned Manager.Although the Contract has covered in excess of $3100 in repair costs, I understand the Complainant’s concern regarding the additional costs he has incurred. It is clear from my review that Royal has adjudicated the claims properly and in accordance with the Contract thus his request for reimbursement has been denied. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint, 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 4/25/16. 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 the part(s) that are 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 7/8/16 at 9:35:12amET our office received a call [redacted] of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”). Sal advised the current mileage on the vehicle was 108,300 and the vehicle needed to have the Vanos Sensors replaced. The representative checked the coverage and found no listing of the Vanos Sensors. As such, no claim was initiated. Upon receipt of this complaint, this matter was again reviewed. The Engine coverage on the Contract states the following: “All internal components of the engine that require lubrication for operation are covered. The engine block, cylinder heads, timing chain cover and oil pan are covered only if damages by the failure of an internally lubricated engine component.” The Vanos Sensor(s) is NOT an internal component, nor does it require lubrication for its operation. The decision to deny coverage 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.

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 Royal Shield Premium...

coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 4/5/2016 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 109,170.  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 of thirty (30) days and 1,000 miles.  There is no coverage provided during this time.  Coverage commences upon the expiration of the Validation Period.  On 5/17/16, at or about 4:49:53pmET our office received a call from [redacted], a representative of Open Road VW, the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF").  [redacted] advised the vehicle was in need of an engine replacement.  At the time of this call, the reported mileage on the vehicle was 110,434.  The Validation Period had expired 12 days and 264 miles prior to this claim.  Accordingly, our representative secured information regarding the RF findings and a claim was initiated.    In accordance with standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to verify the reported failure and, to determine the cause of said failure(s).   The inspector’s findings and evidenced by photographs taken at the time of the inspection included the following: “AS PER TECH VEHICLE WOULD NOT START ON ARRIVAL. TECH STATED HE THEN TRIED TO TURN OVER MOTOR WITH A BREAKER BAR /SOCKET ON THE CRANK AND IT INITIALLY APPEARED LOCKED, THEN AFTER MULTIPLE TRIES THE MOTOR FREED UP AND TURNED OVER.  DURING INSPECTION MOTOR STARTED, RUNNING ROUGH WITH NUMEROUS MISFIRES AND CLOUDS OF WHITE SMOKE FROM TAILPIPE. COOLANT VERY LOW. UPON INSPECTION OF UNDER BODY COOLANT NOTED TO BE DRIPPING ALL OVER THE UNDERCARRIAGE AND AS FAR BACK AS THE MIDDLE OF THE VEHICLE, CONSISTENT WITH A LONG TERM ACTIVE LEAK ….  ON OUTSIDE OF VEHICLE OIL NOTED TO BE MIXED WITH COOLANT ALONG THE RADIATOR SEAMS/OIL PAN AND SURROUNDING AREAS. COULD NOT VERIFY SITE OF LEAK FOR OIL OR COOLANT AT THIS TIME WITHOUT CLEANING, FURTHER DISASSEMBLY AND DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. MULTIPLE CODES STORED FOR MISFIRES ON ALL CYLINDERS, CAMSHAFT POSITION. IN ADDITION THE FOLLOWING CODES INDICATE THE VEHICLE COULD HAVE BEEN OVER HEATING: CODE [redacted] STORED = TEMP FLAP MOTOR FAULTY CODE [redacted]= CENTRAL AIR FLAP MOTOR FAULTY. TEST PLAN REVEALED HEATER CIRCUIT ELECTRICAL MALFUNCTION.”The inspector concluded there was an internal failure to the engine.   The cause of the failure could not be determined without further disassembly and diagnostic testing.  On 5/20/16 at 12:57:08pmET, the Claims Adjuster contacted the RF and spoke with [redacted].   He advised the vehicle had been driven only 12 days and 264 miles since the Contract had reached the validation period.  They discussed the condition of the vehicle and possible next steps.   During this conversation, the RF referenced the dense white smoke coming from the vehicle when starting.  The Claims Adjuster explained the strong possibility the claim would be denied should there not be clear evidence of a sudden failure.  Any overheating or indication of the failure having occurred over a period of more than 246 miles would be denied.  A photograph submitted by the Complainant was reviewed by the Claims Adjuster on 5/23/16.  This did not change the information and supporting photographs provided by the independent inspector.   The Claims Adjuster indicated again if the Complainant wished to authorize the RF to disassemble the engine, only to the point where the failure was visible or determinable a second inspection would be conducted.  On 5/26/16 the RF contacted Royal and advised the Complainant had authorized the teardown.  Having not been advised the vehicle had been disassembled and ready for the inspection, the claim was administratively closed on 6/1/16.   The RF called on 6/8/16 and advised the vehicle was, in fact, torn down and ready for inspection.  The claim was reopened and an independent third party inspector dispatched.  The second inspection findings indicate a long term coolant leak under the engine and oil pan area resulting in a lack of proper lubrication and overheat condition.   There was evidence of heat discoloration on the camshafts and a long term coolant leak coming from the water pump housing gasket.  These findings are consistent with an overheat condition which clearly excludes coverage.   Please refer to the section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 5 which includes the following (bold added for emphasis): “5. Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, vandalism, riot, explosion, lightning, earthquake, overheating, freezing, rust or corrosion, windstorm, hail, water, flood …and/or failure to protect Your Vehicle from further damage when a Breakdown has occurred.”  As of the time of this response, the Claims Manager and Director of Operations have both communicated directly with the Complainant to explain the findings of the independent inspectors and the Contract stipulation with regard to a breakdown found to be caused by an overheat condition.   We certainly understand his disappointment and frustration.   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 Premium coverage plan (the...

“Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 7/1/2015. 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 11/10/2015, at or about 3:30pmET our office received a call from [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF1”) which time a claim was initiated for a replacement of the transmission. In accordance with standard procedures, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to the RF to verify the transmission failure and determine the cause of that failure.  The result of the inspection determined an internal failure of the transmission had occurred but, the cause of the failure and extent was undeterminable as the transmission had not been taken apart. As such, and in accordance with the Contract, a tear down of the transmission to the point where the failure is visible or determinable was needed. This information was communicated to the RF1 by telephone on 11/16/15. After which, the Adjuster placed a call to the Complainant as his authorization is required before the RF may proceed. It has been determined that when the Adjuster placed the call to the Complainant, it rang busy and he did not try to contact the Complainant again.  The Complainant spoke with our office on 11/17/15 and was advised of the need for the transmission to be torn down. In addition, the Complainant indicated he would be relocating the vehicle to another RF. The Adjuster called the Complainant on 11/18/15 and the phone rang busy. He improperly noted there was no answer and then did not call again until 11/19/15. This is inconsistent with proper procedure and has been addressed.  Our office received a call advising the vehicle was being moved to [redacted] (“RF2”). On 11/30/15 an independent third party inspector was dispatched to verify the cause of failure. The inspector is scheduled to be at RF2 at 10am on 12/2/15. Once his report is received and reviewed, presuming no additional information is required, a decision will be rendered.  We certainly apologize for any delays caused by the adjudication process. Clearly this would have been resolved sooner had our communication not been delayed with the Complainant AND, RF1 would have completed the teardown. The Contract does allow for rental reimbursement in the event the claim is approved. Therefore, if the Complainant has rented a vehicle and the claim is approved, he may submit that receipt accordingly.  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.

We are at the dealer today mmorning (Mon. 12-29-15) for a rediagnostic on our car. Other electrical issues where not detected. What I find hard to understand is "how is a service contract is sold over the phone and based on what the sales rep promises would be covered it is purchased, I requested the recording of that sales pitch be reviewed and now that is ignored, why? I am 100% sure that if that recording was to their favor they would have released it. They get away with this type of business dealing BETTING AND KNOWING that the customer will not read the mailed in contract until it is needed (like in our case).  The service writer ([redacted]) just told me that the EBM brake control computer is not covered by them (extd coverage company in question) and that is a considered ELECTRICAL PART which I was told ALL AND ANY ELECTRICAL ISSUES are covered. They will be checking on the other electrical issues auch as the dash lights working at odd times, the side view power mirrors. Let's see what happens. All we ask is for and expect is for the fair and right thing. We are not looking for anything free, simply what we have paid for and sold since day one.Please act accordingly and stop taking advantage of people. I can only imagine how many others fall for this same type of gimmick. PlThRevdex.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, recorded calls and examined the files at issue.  Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Peoples Vehicle Protection Classic...

coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] on 2/24/2013. 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.  At or about 11:05am ET on 7/7/15 our office received a call from a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) who advised the vehicle was in need of an air conditioner compressor. A claim was initiated accordingly. As is the standard practice to be fair and equitable to all customers, claims are reviewed for adjudication in the order in which they are received. Due to the fact that there were claims that had been received prior to that of the Complainant’s, the adjudication of her claim was not completed until shortly before 4pm ET that same day.  The claim was approved in accordance to the Contract. Please refer to the section titled DEFINITIONS, BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS which states in part: “The Administrator will reimburse You for the reasonable costs to repair or replace any of the covered parts listed in this Service Contract if required due to mechanical breakdown ….” In addition, please see the definition for 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 labor rate of the licensed repair facility but in no event will exceed $85.00 per hour.”  The RF and therefore the Complainant asks that coverage be provided for the receiver dryer. The Contract is clear in that the receiver dryer is covered only in the event the damaged or malfunctioning compressor caused damage to that part will it be covered. The Contract does not allow for coverage simply because the RF requests it be replaced.  With regard to the labor time, in accordance to ALL DATA, the nationally recognized flat-rate manual utilized, the time to remove and replace the compressor on the Complainant’s vehicle is 0.9 hours. An additional 1.4 hours was approved to evacuate and recharge the system bringing the total time to 2.3 hours. It is suggested the Complainant inquire with the RF regarding the additional 1.1 hours they requested. The RF stated their labor rate is $115.00 per hour. Based on the previously reference to the Contract, the claim approval was based on $85.00 per hour. Finally, the compressor was priced as aftermarket new available from Auto Zone with a “mark-up” as $339.00.  Adding the tax, the subtotal of the approval came to $561.96. The Complainant’s Contract carries a $100 deductible which is subtracted from the subtotal bringing the original amount to be paid to $461.96.  After learning of the Complainant’s concerns, two (2) amendments were made to the approval on 7/8/15. The first was to increase the allotted funds for the compressor bringing that amount to $371.00. The second was to increase the labor rate to that of the RF, $115.00 per hour. The final approval, after the deductible is $565.56.  The Complainant’s concerns regarding her interaction with our staff are appreciated. It is through constructive feedback that we learn and identify areas of opportunity for improvement. All recorded calls have been reviewed and appropriate action taken.  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.

Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the administrator of the above referenced Service Contract. We are responding with regard to the Complaint on behalf of [redacted] (the “Vendor”), the company from whom the Complainant purchased the Contract. I have reviewed the text of the...

complaint and examined the files at issue. Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from the Vendor on 10/15/2014 at which time the mileage was reported as 104,219. As stated in the Contract, Royal serves as the Administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. On Friday, 7/10/15, at or about 10:15am ET our office received a call from [redacted], the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) who reported a transmission problem with the vehicle. Claim #[redacted] (the “Claim”) was initiated at that time. During the conversation, the RF was advised that maintenance records would be required, an inspection may be needed and that the Oxygen Sensor is not a listed for coverage. In accordance to standard operating procedure, the vehicle was to be inspected by an independent third party to verify the failure, determine the cause of said failure and report findings and photographs supporting those findings to the Royal Adjuster assigned to adjudicate the claim. On that same day, the Adjuster contacted the RF and was unable to speak with the representative. A message was left advising of the need for the inspection and a request for a return call to confirm the vehicle was ready for the inspector. Given the Claim was initiated on a Friday, once the RF confirmed the availability of the vehicle for inspection the inspection company was not contacted and confirmed receipt of the requested inspection on Monday, 7/13/15. On that same day, the RF called to inquire as to the inspection and was advised of the standard 24-48 hours for the inspector to arrive. The inspection was completed on 7/14/15 and that report and photographs were filed that evening. As such, the report was available to the Adjuster on 7/15/15 for his review as part of the adjudication process. Due to an extremely high volume of claim, the decision was delayed resulting in authorization being provided on Saturday, 7/18/15 at or about 8:20am ET. On Monday, 7/20/15, at or about 12:10pm ET the RF contacted our office with regard to the Claim approval. After review, the representative offered and she agreed to have Royal order the used transmission for delivery to Peak [redacted]. In addition, the caller ([redacted]) also inquired as to rental coverage. The representative read the Rental Benefit directly from the Contract. It should be noted that the decision to rent a vehicle is that of the Contract Holder as this is a reimbursement process. As such, the Complainant could have rented a vehicle at any time. Once the Claim was approved, the Rental Benefit would apply starting on the date the claim was submitted, which in this instance was 7/10/15. Had the Complainant rented a vehicle, reimbursement would have been available. In consideration for the previously referenced delay in approving the Claim, reimbursement will be issued for the maximum allowable amount per claim of $175.00. With regard to the approval of the used transmission, please refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES:, item 1. BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS which states the following: “We will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs to repair or replace any Breakdown of a part listed in the Plan Coverage Section, as determined by the Administrator using standard and common industry practices. COVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING UPON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINSITRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTIRED OR NEW PARTS.” The approval of the used transmission falls under this clause as it meets the “like kind and quality”, as well as, the “used” reference. The transmission located meets the manufacturer’s specifications for the Complainant’s 2007 [redacted] 525, had less than the 111,145 miles than that on the Complainant’s vehicle and the supplier provided a 12 month/12,000 mile warranty on both the part and the labor.  The RF was concerned about programming the used transmission for the Complainant’s vehicle. Additional labor time of one (1.0) hour was provided for the time needed to complete this process. Given the RF is a [redacted] dealer, it would be expected that their facility would have the capability to complete this process. The total labor time approved was 9 hours. As previously referenced, one (1.0) hour was allocated for the programming while the remaining eight (8.0) is the stated time needed to remove and replace the transmission in this vehicle as indicated in the nationally published labor manual, [redacted].  The Contract does indicate if the claim is approved, the reasonable cost of diagnosis will be paid by the Administrator, for up to one hour. As such, the Claim has been amended and the Complainant will be reimbursed for one hour at the labor rate approved for the Claim of $128.96.  When the Claim was submitted, the RF advised their posted labor rate was $135.00 per hour. As stated in the Contract, the labor rate will be based on the posted labor rate. However, it also states the “Administrator also reserved the right to adjust the approved labor rate if the repair facility’s labor rate is deemed to be excessive by the Administrator when compared to local average labor rates for similar facilities.” At the time of submission, the local (25 mile radius of the RF) average labor rate for similar facilities (European Dealerships) was $128.96 which was approved for the Claim.   In addition to the diagnosis, the Complainant references fluid and bolts. Items such as bolts and screws are shop supplies and are not listed for coverage. Fluids, when required in conjunction with a covered repair should have been included. As such, reimbursement in the amount of $209.40 for 6 liters of transmission fluid (ATF) will be issued.The Complainant states his share of the cost of the replacement of the transmission should be 0%. Each claim on this Contract carries a $100 deductible. In addition, the Complainant would be responsible for any charges not covered under the Service Contract of which the bolts, screws and brake cleaner would fall. As would the additional labor costs of the difference between that which was approved and that charged by the RF. At this time a reimbursement will be issued to the Complainant as follows: 1 hour for diagnosis = $128.96Transmission Fluid = $209.40Subtotal = $338.368.75% Tax on Subtotal = $29.61Rental/Cab Fare Reimbursement = $175.00Total Reimbursement = $542.97A check in this amount will be issued to the Complainant and mailed to the address on file. 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. I would recommend to Royal Administration that they be more selective in whom they do business with. Its not right that The [redacted] seems to have no intention of paying me my refund that I'm entitled to under the contract. They don't even answer back to the Revdex.com or attorney general! Do you really want to do business with The [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] (the “Vendor”) on 9/2/2015 at which time the reading of the odometer was indicated as 751,123 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.  On 11/23/15 our office was contacted by a representative of [redacted] (the “RF”). The odometer reading was provided of 175,053 indicating the vehicle had been driven 2930 miles over the 72 days following the purchase of the Contract. As this met the validation period (30 days AND 1000 miles driven) by 42 days and 1930 miles a claim was initiated.  The RF advised the vehicle was in need of a new transmission. 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 identified the torques converter input shaft area splines were stripped and the hosing discolored. The initial determination to deny coverage made on 11/19/15 was based on the condition of the torque converter.  Our records indicate the Complainant contacted our office on 11/19/15 at 4:24:43pmET at which time he spoke with a male Customer Service Representative (“CSR”). I found no call prior to this initiating from the telephone number on file that was disconnected. A review of the referenced call recording indicates when the Complainant requested the opportunity to speak with a Supervisor the CSR placed him on hold and accidentally sent the call to the Supervisor’s voicemail without proper notification. The total length of the call was 7:52 minutes.  Upon realizing what had transpired, the CSR called the Complainant back and reached a voicemail. A message was left apologizing for having dropped the call and advising he had notified the Supervisor of the Complainant’s request to speak with him. The Complainant called back at 4:39:18pmET. This call lasted 11:19 minutes. The concerns outlined by the Complainant have been reviewed and addressed accordingly.  Having received the message, the inspection report was reviewed by the Claims Technical Lead (“CTL”) which resulted in the reversal of the denial. The claim was authorized for the replacement of the transmission. The CTL personally contacted the Complainant directly on 11/23/15 at 12:30:58pm ET. During that conversation, the CTL explained the approval and offered to have the replacement transmission shipped directly to the RF.

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above.  I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.   The Complainant has not provided any new information that would support the reversal of the claim denial.  Please refer once again to the findings of the independent third party and the photographs as explained in our response dated July 5, 2016.   The air conditioning would have continued working despite the leak until such time as the loss of freon resulted in the lack of proper cooling.   The RF stated when initiating the claim on 5/27/16 that when the freon level was checked it was found to be empty.   This further supports the conclusion that the leak was long term and occurred during or prior to the Validation Period being met.   To be clear, Royal does not sell or collect funds for the sale of the Contracts.  As the Contract Administrator we are required by the underwriter to adhere to the terms and conditions set forth in the Contract.   Unfortunately this may result in the denial of coverage.  Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract.  Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue.  As previously stated Royal serves as the Administrator of the Contract. This requires our office to abide by the terms and conditions set forth in the Contract. Royal is not now, nor has been at any time responsible for or required to ensure that the selling vendor meets their obligation.  The Vendor notified Royal of the Complainant’s decision to cancel the Contract on 6/30/15. The effective date of the cancellation was entered as 6/26/16. In accordance with the Contract, a pro-rated refund reflecting 75.03% of the consideration received was paid to the Finance Company, [redacted]. The Vendor is responsible for refunding the Complainant.  In an effort to assist the Complainant, Royal has contacted the Vendor multiple times to secure confirmation the refund has been issued. To date no response has been received. It is recommended the Complainant contact the Vendor directly 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.

Revdex.com:
 this s claim against royal has been on a stand still they informed me they would be doing a reinspection at the new shop the repair facility call to set up on 2 /29/16 without a call back till yesterday after numerous calls into royal [redacted] the sr adjuster he called both the repair shop and us and stated they would probaly not reinspect the vehicle [redacted] did state they would be willing to pay for a rear main seal repair cost but not an engine which needs to be replaced i've done all my maintence even more than required for appx 13k since purchase I have top of line warranty for seals and gaskets and many components and had no warning of anything that could have prevented this breakdown no lights on dash or oil in parking area please help me have royal fulfill the contract as I have more than done my part ms [redacted] has been the supervisor we have been in contact with thank you so this needs to be.as I stated in previous email royal isn't responding as we were told by [redacted] I followed all my maintaince and then some I had no warning but royal still tries to deny my claim please reopen file as this has been going on for way too long maybe they can contact us and negotiate some solution thanks for reopening my case   reopened
Regards,
[redacted]

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue. As previously stated in the response submitted 5/16/15, the Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. To be clear, the Contract covers mechanical failure. It does not cover preventative maintenance or a part which has not been demonstrated as having failed. With regard to the starter, the RF advised the Inspector that he thought “there was a dead spot in the starter due to it starting slow”. Multiple attempts to start the vehicle (“at least 15 times”) were successful thus no failure was demonstrated. It is important to note that the RF stated the vehicle needed new spark plugs. Spark plugs are directly related to the vehicle starting which may have contributed to the Complainant’s reference to “low cranking power”. The Complainant states there was “movement in the left ball joint” this alone does not constitute a failure. The inspector stated there was no “play” which would indicate any “movement” which may be present is normal and within the manufacturer’s specifications. The review of the information confirms there were no demonstrated failures to either the starter or left lower ball joint. Therefore the decision to deny coverage for these items stands. 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. 
From what I can tell their response is just asking for the same information I provided you when I completed my complaint.  I want them to cover my $926.83 repair cost by including the Torque Converter Solenoid as part of the Torque Converter coverage.   I also would like my money back since this company looks for ways to reject claims, takes forever to settle claim, and their supervisors take way too long to return phone calls (6 calendar days).
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
I don't understand as I have only drove the vehicle for 6 days and bought the vehicle as is from the dealership. I did not put new tires on this vehicle but yet I was still sold this warranty with the intentions that it was valid and had already been inspected by the company that sold the warranty and this warranty was presented to me as being valid. Under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (P.L. 93-637) is a United States federal law, (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.) which is designed to protect me the consumer from fraudulent warranty practices. You stated yourself that the tires had nothing to do with the problem of the engine and that a 6% different in tire size would only effect the speed on the odometer by not even 1 mph difference. Please tell me how you are not violating the previously mentioned federal law by denying my claim leaving me completely stranded.
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
 
Regards,
[redacted]

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 8/5/2015 at which time the mileage was reported as 105,448. 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 11/25/2015, at or about 2:20pmET, our office received a call from [redacted], the Complainants’ selected repair facility (the “RF”) reporting the timing chain had broken. The mileage reported at that time was 106,362. The Contract carries a Validation Period of thirty (30) days and 1,000 miles. Any failure which occurs during this period will not be covered thus, the claim was initially denied as the vehicle had not been driven 1,000 miles (106,362 – 105,448 = 914).  The Vendor contacted our office on 12/2/2015 and advised the mileage reported to Royal when the Contract was purchased was incorrect. The correct starting mileage was 104,548. This confirmed the Validation Period had been met by both time and miles (106,362 – 104,548 = 1814) resulting in the claim being reinstated.  In accordance with standard operating procedures, upon confirmation from the RF that the vehicle had been torn down to the point where the failure was viewable or determinable, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to the RF. The purpose of the inspection was to verify the reported failure of the timing chain and, to determine the cause of said failure.  At the time of the inspection on 12/7/15, the inspector requested a pressure test be conducted. This was videotaped and revealed a water pump gasket leak. This report was sent to the Complainant but did not include the video. On 1/27/16 an email with a hyperlink to the report was emailed which will allow the Complainant to play the video and clearly see the leak referenced. When a leak such as this is present, the engine does not receive the necessary lubrication which in an overheating condition. In a call to the RF on 12/8/15 a message was left regarding these concerns. On 12/16/15, the RF returned the call and spoke to the Adjuster regrading this matter.  To verify overheating was the true cause of the failure, a second inspection was ordered. The results of which confirmed overheating was the cause of failure. The is evident by the condition of various parts including, but not limited to, the intake valve seats had popped out of their fixed positions in the heads and had dropped in to the engine making contact with the pistons. The valve seats were wedged under the intake valves, the cylinder heads were difficult to properly measure but the ones that could be reached were found to be warped.      A review of the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 5 states in part: “5. Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, vandalism,… overheating, freezing, rust or corrosion, … and/or failure to protect Your Vehicle from further damage when a Breakdown has occurred,.” Although the Complainant may not have been aware of the overheat condition, this does not change the facts. Overheating as a cause of failure is excluded under the Contract and as such the claim was properly denied. Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, 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 4/15/16 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 152,090.  As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. ("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract.  The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions.  The Contract carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and 1,000 miles from the date of purchase and mileage reported at that time.  The Contract stipulates there is no coverage during that period.  In addition, in the event a breakdown is determined to have occurred during the Validation Period or prior to the purchase of the Contract, coverage will be excluded.  On 5/6/16 at 11:04amET a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (RF) contacted our office to initiate a claim.  The mileage was reported as 156,225.   This indicates the Contract had been purchased 31 days prior and the vehicle had been driven 4,135 miles.   As the Validation Period was met, the claim was initiated.  Given the Contract had been available for a period of only one (1) day and in accordance to the standard adjudication process, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to the RF.  The purpose of the inspection was to verify the failures reported AND, to determine the cause of same.  Again, given the coverage had become active only one (1) day prior to the claim initiation, the failures would have had to be “sudden” in nature.  The inspection report and accompanying photographs were reviewed.   It is clear that the failures to the right and left axle shafts were not sudden but rather occurred over a period of time and miles driven which is not consistent with a period of one (1) day.   The claim was properly denied as having occurred during or prior to the completion of the Validation Period.  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 4/15/16 at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 152,090. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. ("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. The Contract carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and 1,000 miles from the date of purchase and mileage reported at that time. The Contract stipulates there is no coverage during that period. In addition, in the event a breakdown is determined to have occurred during the Validation Period or prior to the purchase of the Contract, coverage will be excluded. On 5/6/16 at 11:04amET a representative of [redacted], the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (RF) contacted our office to initiate a claim. The mileage was reported as 156,225. This indicates the Contract had been purchased 31 days prior and the vehicle had been driven 4,135 miles. As the Validation Period was met, the claim was initiated. Given the Contract had been available for a period of only one (1) day and in accordance to the standard adjudication process, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to the RF. The purpose of the inspection was to verify the failures reported AND, to determine the cause of same. Again, given the coverage had become active only one (1) day prior to the claim initiation, the failures would have had to be “sudden” in nature. The inspection report and accompanying photographs were reviewed. It is clear that the failures to the right and left axle shafts were not sudden but rather occurred over a period of time and miles driven which is not consistent with a period of one (1) day. The claim was properly denied as having occurred during or prior to the completion of the Validation Period. 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 Peoples Vehicle Protection Classic...

coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 3/29/2014. As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. Royal does not now nor has in the past been a seller of any Vehicle Service Contracts. As such, we cannot comment on any communication which occurred between the Complainant and the Vendor. The Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions. The Contract is “part specific” in that it covers only those components/parts listed under the section titled WHAT IS COVERED that require repair or replacement due to a mechanical failure. If the part/component is not listed or if the cause of the failure is determined to be excluded, coverage cannot be provided. A review of the Complainant’s file shows that there have been no claims approved. Our office has been contacted with regard to repairs needed on four (4) occasions. The first occurred on or about 5/16/2014 when the rear wiper motor failed, a review of the coverage found the “rear” wiper motor was not a listed part. On the second occasion, on or about 7/7/2014 a claim was initiated for engine noise. The Complainant’s selected repair facility stated the timing chain needed to be replaced. Upon completion of the adjudication process, which included an inspection by an independent third party, no failure was demonstrated and noise alone is not a failure thus the claim was denied. On 7/3/2015 a call was received from a repair facility inquiring as to coverage for the front axle and the upper ball joints. The caller was advised the axles are listed for coverage but the ball joints are not listed. The caller then asked about the upper control arms at which time he was advised there is no suspension coverage for this Contract. Although it was confirmed the axles were listed the repair facility did not initiate a claim at that time stating he would call the following Monday to do so. No call was received. On 9/14/2015 our office again received a call from the repair facility on behalf of the Complainant. The representative asked about suspension coverage and specifically inquired as to coverage for the upper and lower ball joints, as wells as, the CV axle. He was advised that the Contract purchased by the Complainant does not cover suspension therefore the ball joints are not covered. There was discussion about the CV axle as which time the repair facility was advised that if the “boots” that protect the axle from dirt, grease, grime, etc. getting in to the axle were torn or ripped then this would exclude the ccv axle coverage. The repair facility did not pursue a claim. The Complainant contacted our office on 9/16/15. During the course of the call, she referenced several parts that were being replaced by the repair facility. She was advised of the fact that the Contract does not include any suspension coverage and others were not listed for coverage. The Complainant inquired as to how to cancel the Contract and stated she wanted her money back. It was explained that she would need to contact the Vendor. When attempting to locate a Supervisor to speak to the Complainant the call was “lost”. There is no record of the Complainant calling again or of a request for a return call. On 9/25/15 our office contacted the Complainant to discuss the information provided here. The Complainant restated her desire to cancel the Contract. At this time, Royal has received her written request which will be processed in accordance to the Contract. This includes contacting the Vendor as that company is responsible for a portion of the refund owed to the Complainant. In the event, the Vendor refuses to participate in the Cancellation refund process, Royal will issue the portion of the refund for which our office is responsible directly to the Complainant. 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.