Safe Auto Repairs

We appreciate you giving us the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint. Mr. [redacted] has a Vehicle Service Contract with Royal Administration which he purchased through, Safe Auto. Safe Auto did not participate in the claims process in any way. We have gathered the following information...

pertaining to Mr. [redacted]'s claim from Royal Administration.Royal Administration sent a third party inspector to take a look at Mr. [redacted]'s claim. During this inspection the inspector noticed that Mr. [redacted]'s truck did not have catalytic converters on it. This is far more critical of a situation than stated by Mr. [redacted]. He stated that he had a different muffler.The inspector stated that the vehicle did not have catalytic converters and the issue that Mr. [redacted] was having was more than likely caused by the performance enhancements done to the vehicle.Mr. [redacted] has a contract with Royal Administration.  Inside of this contract it clearly states that vehicles that have been modified are not eligible for coverage.  In one sentence Mr. [redacted] says that Safe Auto should have asked him if he had modifications.  In the next sentence he states that he had noidea that his vehicle had modifications. Clearly it would not have helped if he were asked.Mr. [redacted]'s contract was cancelled by Royal Administration due to the vehicle modifications.  Mr. [redacted] was issued the pro-rated refund he was owed based on the terms and conditions of his contract.

Review: I purchased an extended warranty for a vehicle and when I filed a claim (almost a year later), they denied it. They refused it because they said modifications (new muffler) were made to the vehicle. I never made any modifications; the modifications made were from a previous owner. The Ford repair dealership told the adjuster (who denied the claim) that the previous modification would have no impact on the damaged part (transmission) whatsoever. This company is just looking for any frivilous reason to deny a claim. The warranty company refused to return the full monies paid for the warranty. The reason they should return all warranty monies paid is because I was not covered from day one of the warranty purchase because the modification was made before I purchased the truck, therefore I should receive a full refund. I asked the warranty company why didn't they ask about any modifications before taking money from a hard working consumer and Mr. [redacted] told me that such few vehicles have modifications made that they don't ask. Bottom line is these people bugged me to no end asking me to purchase their product but can't take 5 seconds to ask about any modification that may void a warranty.........this is terrible business practices. When they denied my claim, it took them 3 months to return a partial refund. The first check they sent me was unsigned so I called the company and Mr [redacted] told me he would send out another one that day but he didn't; when I finally got the signed one, it was postmarked several days after he assured me it went out in the mail. Again, terrible business practices.

Business

Response:

We appreciate you giving us the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint. Mr. [redacted] has a Vehicle Service Contract with Royal Administration which he purchased through, Safe Auto. Safe Auto did not participate in the claims process in any way. We have gathered the following information pertaining to Mr. [redacted]'s claim from Royal Administration.Royal Administration sent a third party inspector to take a look at Mr. [redacted]'s claim. During this inspection the inspector noticed that Mr. [redacted]'s truck did not have catalytic converters on it. This is far more critical of a situation than stated by Mr. [redacted]. He stated that he had a different muffler.The inspector stated that the vehicle did not have catalytic converters and the issue that Mr. [redacted] was having was more than likely caused by the performance enhancements done to the vehicle.Mr. [redacted] has a contract with Royal Administration. Inside of this contract it clearly states that vehicles that have been modified are not eligible for coverage. In one sentence Mr. [redacted] says that Safe Auto should have asked him if he had modifications. In the next sentence he states that he had noidea that his vehicle had modifications. Clearly it would not have helped if he were asked.Mr. [redacted]'s contract was cancelled by Royal Administration due to the vehicle modifications. Mr. [redacted] was issued the pro-rated refund he was owed based on the terms and conditions of his contract.