Royal Administration Services

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and, examined the files at issue As previously stated Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions Royal does not now, nor has at any time in the past participated in the sale of the ContractAs such, we cannot comment on any communication between the Complainant and the Vendor The Complainant indicates the claim approval was not for “OEM” partsWhen the claim was initiated by a representative of the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (“RF”) the OEM part numbers were provided and stated the cost of each speed sensor was said to be $ In the course of the adjudication process, the Claims Adjuster used the part numbers provided and found the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (“MSRP”) for each speed sensor was $Thus, when the claim was approved, the part pricing was based on the OEM part using MSRP A review of the invoice submitted by the RF shows the same part numbers were priced at $eachThis is a cost of $MORE than the MSRPThe difference for the two (2) speed sensors would thus be $plus applicable tax and would be the responsibility of the Complainant For future reference regarding part pricing, please refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES, item BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS which states: “We will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs of repair or replace any Breakdown of a part listed in the Plan Coverage Section, as determined by the Administrator using standard and common industry practicesCOBVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY AND AT THE ADMINISTRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.” Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced 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/ 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, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueThe Complainant has provided 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 ringThere was no defect or other cause found by or demonstrated to the independent inspector when he physically examined the vehicle on 4/25/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 reviewedOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/25/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions On 9/25/our office was contacted by a representative of [redacted] (the “RF”) who advised of repairs needed to the vehicleAs is standard practice in a claim of this nature, an independent inspection was orderedThe inspector does not make the decision with regard to coverage, his role is to verify the reported failure and determine the cause of said failureHis 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 gasketA review of the coverage provided indicates that “Seals & gaskets are covered only if required in conjunction with a Covered RepairLeaking seals or gaskets are not covered.” As only the gasket failure was found, the claim was properly denied On 10/5/the Complainant contacted our office to discuss the findingsHe 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 findingsAs previously stated, the inspector is independent in that he is employed by an Inspection AgencyThe 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 firmA representative of that firm (the “TCR”) has made multiple attempts to reach the Complainant to review his concerns and discuss the findingsThe 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 ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 4/25/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsThe Contract is “part specific” in that it lists the part(s) that are available for coverageIf the part is not specifically listed then coverage is not availableReference is made to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which clearly states “Any parts not listed.” On 7/8/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,and the vehicle needed to have the Vanos Sensors replacedThe representative checked the coverage and found no listing of the Vanos SensorsAs such, no claim was initiatedUpon receipt of this complaint, this matter was again reviewedThe Engine coverage on the Contract states the following: “All internal components of the engine that require lubrication for operation are coveredThe 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 operationThe decision to deny coverage is correctOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the [redacted] (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 4/15/at which time the mileage was reported as 97,The Contract carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and milesThe Contract is available for use once both criterions are metAs stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract which is backed by [redacted] The Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions.On 6/17/15, our office received a call from [redacted] the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) who advised the vehicle had been towed in with a dead battery, low engine compression and found the timing chain tensioners to be brokenThe mileage was reported as 98,Given the Validation Period had been met a claim was initiatedDue to the nature of the repairs the RF was advised maintenance records would be requestedIn accordance with standard operating procedures, a Car Fax was run on the vehicle; a request was made for a copy of the vehicle registration and a third party independent inspector was dispatched to the RFThe inspector was sent for the purpose of verifying the failures and to determine the cause of said failuresA review of the inspector’s report and supporting photographs found the left primary plastic guide chain was missingThe chain had been rubbing on the metal mounting which showed gouges and the right lower primary chain guide was broken in to piecesThe tensioner showed major wear and all other chain guides showed grooved wearThe timing cover has heavy varnish presentAll of these findings indicate the failures occurred over a long period of timeBased on the fact the vehicle had been driven only miles after the Validation Period was met (98,– 97,= – validation miles = 235), it is apparent the failure occurred before the Contract was available for useThe claim was denied and the RF contacted on 6/22/Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which states: “Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurs during the Validation Period.”The RF returned our call on 6/23/at or about 9:15amET and was advised of the decisionShortly thereafter the Complainant made the first of several calls to Royal to inquire as to the denial reasonIt is unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding by the staff when reviewing the adjuster’s notes and she was, in fact, provided with incorrect information regarding this matterOn 6/24/the Director of Operations returned her call, apologized for the errors and explained in detail the reason for the claim denialBased on information provided by the Complainant which had not previously been discussed by her selected RF, the decision was reviewed by the Claims ManagerThe Complainant spoke with him on 6/25/at which time he advised of his agreement with the original denialBased on that conversation, the Claims Manager offered to have all information reviewed a third time by our [redacted] (the ‘Tech”)This was done on 6/26/after which the Tech contacted the Complainant and explained the decision and confirmed the failure to the vehicle would not have occurred over the driving distance of milesIt should be noted that this last conversation occurred several hours AFTER the Complainant contacted the Revdex.comIn addition, per the written request received from the Complainant, a reference copy of the independent inspector’s report and photographs was emailed to the Complainant on 6/26/Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

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

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Peoples Vehicle Protection Premier coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 5/22/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractRoyal does not now or at any time been a participant in the sales processAs such, we cannot comment on any communication that occurred between the Complainant and the Vendor during that processThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions The Contract is commonly referred to as “part specific” in that it clearly lists all components/parts that will be covered in the event of a mechanical failureIf the component/part is not listed in the Coverage section then it is not eligible for coverage and the Complainant would be responsible for all costs associated with that repair Our office was contacted by the Complainant on or about 10/29/and inquired as to coverage for the vehicle bacameraHe was advised it was not listed for coverageOn 1/18/a representative from a repair facility selected by the Complainant contacted our office and also inquired as to coverage for the bacamera and was again advised this part is not listed for coverage In the event the Complainant wishes to cancel this Contract, he should submit to Royal a signed written request which includes a statement of the vehicle mileageUpon receipt, the request will be processed in accordance with the Contract cancellation clause as required by the state of Illinois Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at 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 processRoyal 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 ContractThere 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, Hour Roadside Assistance which states in part: “Your Vehicle will be covered for up to ten (10) occurrences over the term of Your Service ContractTowing 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 dateReimbursement for a rental vehicle provided for a maximum of $per day, up to a maximum of daysAny authorized repair which requires the Vehicle to be left at a repair facility will qualify for one (1) day of rental reimbursementParts delays will qualify for up to three (3) days of rental reimbursementDelays for inspection required by the Administrator qualify for up to one (1) day of rental reimbursementIn no case will delays caused by parts or inspections increase the maximum limit of 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 repairIt is Your responsibility to ensure the cause of the Breakdown is properly diagnosedIf 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 ContractThe 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 determinableYou are responsible for authorizing the repair facility to complete the tear-downThe 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 ComplainantThe final amount paid to the Complainant’s selected repair facility on 12/8/was $3,Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Select coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 5/31/ 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 conditionsOn 2/3/16, at 10:42:03am ET out a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our office As a result of that conversation, a claim was initiated with regard to an engine concern In accordance to standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF The purpose of the inspection was to verify the actual failure(s) and to determine the cause of said failure(s) The result of the inspection confirmed a material failure of the #exhaust valve The condition of the exhaust valve indicates this failure is due to extreme temperature causing the exhaust valve to overheat which is evident by the corner of the valve being burnt off The Adjuster notified the RF of the inspector’s findings In the recorded conversation with the RF, although there was discussion of reasons a failure such as this may occur, the RF was unable to explain the obvious condition of a piece missing and burnt edging of the exhaust valve The Complainant spoke with our office on 2/11/with regard to the denial of coverage In his recorded conversation with a Customer Service Representative and then with a Supervisor, details related to the inspector’s findings were communicated which support the cause of the failure as that of an over heat condition Unfortunately, in this instance the cause of the failed exhaust valve excludes coverage As such the claim was properly denied and we are unable to assist with the cost of this repairOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Select coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 5/31/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions On 2/3/16, at 10:42:03am ET out a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our officeAs a result of that conversation, a claim was initiated with regard to an engine concern In accordance to standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RFThe purpose of the inspection was to verify the actual failure(s) and to determine the cause of said failure(s) The result of the inspection confirmed a material failure of the #exhaust valveThe condition of the exhaust valve indicates this failure is due to extreme temperature causing the exhaust valve to overheat which is evident by the corner of the valve being burnt offThe Adjuster notified the RF of the inspector’s findingsIn the recorded conversation with the RF, although there was discussion of reasons a failure such as this may occur, the RF was unable to explain the obvious condition of a piece missing and burnt edging of the exhaust valve The Complainant spoke with our office on 2/11/with regard to the denial of coverageIn his recorded conversation with a Customer Service Representative and then with a Supervisor, details related to the inspector’s findings were communicated which support the cause of the failure as that of an over heat condition Unfortunately, in this instance the cause of the failed exhaust valve excludes coverageAs such the claim was properly denied and we are unable to assist with the cost of this repair Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueOur records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield Premium coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 4/10/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsPlease 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 manualThe labor rate for authorized repairs will be based on the posted labor rate of the licensed repair facility that You selectedIf 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 facilitiesAdministrator 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): “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 practicesCOVERED 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 DataAll 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 websiteA review of the two (2) claims indicates the adjudication and amount approved was in keeping with the Contract terms and conditionsThe first claim, # [redacted] , was approved on 8/11/The Complainant specifically questioned the amount of oil approved.This claim was approved for the removal and replacement of the ABC PumpThe hydraulic oil amount approved would therefore be based on that needed when completing this repairIn accordance with All Data the amount of hydraulic oil needed for this process is literThis converts to quarts or pintsThe claim included pints of oil which was more than the amount required for this repairRegarding the most recent claim, # [redacted] , the Complainant questioned the labor time approved specifically related to the air conditioner compressorAuthorization provided on 3/3/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 pulleyOnce 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 hoursAdding the evacuation and recharge brings the total for that repair to hoursWhen the other repairs are included, the total time authorized for the claim is hoursAs 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 hoursThis 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 compressorIn other words, the time to remove and replace each individual item needed rather than the removal of all items and replacement of sameThis, in essence, increases the labor time actually needed when removing and replacing all parts for the entire compressorUpon review of the claim, it was noted that the RF contacted our office on 3/9/requesting the receiver drier be added to the claimIn 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 partThe RF then advised the drier had not failedAs such, it was not included in the claimA 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/which, although not an excuse, may be the reason no return call was made following his request of 3/11/We received two calls that day from the ComplainantThe first was received at or about 10am ET during which he was apprised of the claim approval and he inquired as to cancellationThe Complainant was driving so, as a courtesy, his call was transferred to the Vendor to discuss the cancellation processIt was during the second call received at or about 11amET that he asked to speak to a ManagerNone was available and a request was submitted for a return callI do apologize the Complainant was not calledThe decision not to return the Complainant’s call has been addressed with the assigned Manager.Although the Contract has covered in excess of $in repair costs, I understand the Complainant’s concern regarding the additional costs he has incurredIt 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 deniedOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

We are at the dealer today mmorning (Mon12-29-15) for a rediagnostic on our carOther electrical issues where not detectedWhat 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 itThey 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 coveredThey will be checking on the other electrical issues auch as the dash lights working at odd times, the side view power mirrorsLet's see what happensAll we ask is for and expect is for the fair and right thingWe 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 peopleI can only imagine how many others fall for this same type of gimmickPlThRevdex.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 Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 12/31/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 102, As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions On 5/27/16, at or about 5:55pm ET our office received a call from ***, a representative of [redacted] ***, the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF") [redacted] advised the vehicle was in need of an air conditioner evaporator which would also require the appropriate fluids As the evaporator is a listed item for coverage, a claim was initiated In accordance with standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to verify the failure and to determine the cause of said failure This process was delayed in that the vehicle was not at the address provided at the time of the claim but rather another of their locations The inspection was thus completed on 6/6/ Each claims adjuster has established dollar limits for claims In the event the cost of a repair exceeds his limit he is required to escalate the claim for review In this instance the adjuster assigned reviewed the estimated cost of the repair and the inspector’s findings The estimate exceeded his dollar limit so he forwarded the claim to the quality assurance team for review The evaporator core was removed from the vehicle for the inspection When describing the condition of the evaporator core the inspector stated “one corner is very wet leak, long term, on both sides of the evaporator core No other failures seen.” Photographs of the evaporator core were provided and support his observations Per a written request received from the Complainant, a copy of the inspection report was sent to her via email on or about 6/17/ The decision to deny the claim was based on the photographs which, as stated, clearly show a significant wet area at one corner of the evaporator When viewing a photograph of the entire evaporator it appears the stain covers nearly a quarter of the area In addition, there is a preponderance of grime buildup beside the stain The oil and dye disbursement on the evaporator core would take a long period of time to occur The inspector stated “both sides” which further indicates a long term leak Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which states: “Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurs during the Validation Period.” The Contract carries a validation period of thirty (30) days and miles from the purchase date and starting mileage Based on the findings of the independent third party inspector and supporting photographs, the claim was denied as the breakdown occurred during or prior to the Validation Period being met Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law Very truly yours, [redacted] Director of Operation

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]

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

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 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/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 152, 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,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/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, This indicates the Contract had been purchased days prior and the vehicle had been driven 4,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, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 4/15/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 152,As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsThe Contract carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and 1,miles from the date of purchase and mileage reported at that timeThe Contract stipulates there is no coverage during that periodIn 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 excludedOn 5/6/at 11:04amET a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (RF) contacted our office to initiate a claimThe mileage was reported as 156,This indicates the Contract had been purchased days prior and the vehicle had been driven 4,milesAs the Validation Period was met, the claim was initiatedGiven 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 RFThe purpose of the inspection was to verify the failures reported AND, to determine the cause of sameAgain, given the coverage had become active only one (1) day prior to the claim initiation, the failures would have had to be “sudden” in natureThe inspection report and accompanying photographs were reviewedIt 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) dayThe claim was properly denied as having occurred during or prior to the completion of the Validation PeriodOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does 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 resolvedI 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, 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/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 141, 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 ***, 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 which begins: “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, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 8/20/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 141,As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsOn 5/11/16, at or about 9:48:53amET our office received a call from ***, 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 initiatedIn 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 pressureAlthough the RF stated the oil pump failed there was no such failure demonstrated to the inspectorThere 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 componentsThe Contract states gaskets are covered only in conjunction with a covered repairThe failure of timing chain tensioner gasket alone is not covered and any consequential damage resulting from that failure is also not coveredPlease see the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which begins: “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 programsThe Complainant references a discussion with a representative of [redacted] to which Royal was not involvedAs such, Royal will not comment on that communicationOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

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

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, reviewed recorded calls and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the People’s Vehicle Protection Premier coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Dealer”) on 5/17/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions.On 1/5/our office received a call from [redacted] of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”)A claim was initiated for the replacement of four (4) fuel injectors and a decoupling elementThe RF also inquired as to coverage for a coolant hose and air pressure sensor neither of which is listed for coverage under the ContractUpon review, the decoupling element is not a listed part so only the fuel injectors were to be consideredIn accordance with standard operating procedures, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to the RF for the purpose of verifying the failures and determining the cause of said failuresAt the time of the inspection, no failure was demonstratedThe Claims Adjuster (a Certified Master Mechanic) contacted the RF leaving a message advising no current codes, no misfiring at the time of the inspectionIt is our understanding that the RF completed a “Test Plan” onlyThere was no report or results provided for additional testing which would have identified the actual failed partThese tests include a Balance Test, Fuel Drop Test and having “Ohmed” each injector to test the resistanceWithout these tests to confirm the actual failed part(s) and no demonstration of failure, we had no alternative but to deny the claimNotification of that decision was verbally made to the RF on 1/7/The decision to remove the vehicle from the RF and continue to drive said vehicle was that of the RF and ComplainantNo further communication was received from either party until 5/5/At or about 4:15pm ET the RF called our office to advise the vehicle had been towed to their facilityUpon examination, the RF indicated the vehicle needed the engine replacedAs is the standard procedure, the RF was asked to provide the documentation showing the diagnostic codes, their repair cost estimate and vehicle maintenance records for reviewThe requested documents were received on 5/6/and reviewedThe Claims Adjuster contacted the RF and advised an independent inspector would be dispatched to verify the failure and determine the causeAlthough the inspection determined there was a failure to the engine, the cause of that failure could not be determinedOn 5/7/15, having reviewed the independent inspector’s findings the Adjuster contacted the RFTo determine the cause of the failure, a tear down of the engine would be needed to the point where the failure is visible or determinableThe teardown must be authorized by the ComplainantAs is appropriate, the Adjuster advised the RF of the cause of failure was needed to confirm coverage was available to the Complainant under the terms of the ContractThis included pointing out the fact that if the cause of the failure was determined to be related to the fuel injectors, the engine replacement may be deniedIn the subsequent conversation with the Complainant, the Adjuster again explained the findings by the inspector did not determine the cause of the failureHe advised the need to determine the cause and the steps needed to do soFurther, he advised the Complainant of the possibility the claim could be deniedAs previously stated, there were additional tests that the RF could have run in January to determine IF one or more injectors had failed or if some other part was causing the check engine light to go on intermittently and the engine malfunction light to appear on the navigation screen as reported to be the Complainant’s complaint at that timeIn addition, the decision to not make any repairs in January was that of the RF and ComplaintFinally, the engine coverage under the Contract states in part: “ all internal components of the engine block and cylinder heads, if damage is caused by a mechanical failure of an internally lubricated part.” Should the cause of the engine failure be deemed that of failed injectors, it would not be covered as an injector is NOT an internally lubricated partTo be clear, injectors do not require lubrication to operateAt this time, the claim remains in a “pending” status awaiting the notification by the RF that a teardown has been completed and what, if any further findings the RF may reportAn independent inspector will again be dispatched and his report and photographs will then be reviewed and a decision renderedIf, however, the Complainant chooses not to authorize the teardown, the claim will be administratively closed as no decision can be made without first determining the cause of the engine failureOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law