Service Guard

Below is Service Guard's response to Complaint ID [redacted] Please let us know if there are any questions or if any further action is required on our partThank you serif;"> The vehicle service contract referenced in the complaint provides coverage for repair or replacement of parts due to their failureCoverage is on a stated component basis, meaning that all parts and components covered by the contract are listed in the Schedule of Coverages, and any part not listed in that Schedule is excluded from coverageAs noted in the complaint, the vehicle service technician reported to our company that the crankcase vent valve on vehicle in question failed and needed to be replacedCrankcase vent valve is not listed in the Schedule of CoveragesThe valve cover referenced in the complaint is listed as a covered component, however, there was no failure of that particular partDespite our position that the part and repair costs are not covered by the contract in question, and as a gesture of good will to the customer, Service Guard agreed to pay 50%, or $554.81, of the repair cost [redacted] Licensing & Compliance Administrator

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: "All parts and components covered by the contract are listed in the Schedule of Coverages." The valve cover referenced in the complaint is listed as a covered componentThe crankcase vent valve and valve cover are the same part in a BMW 328iYou cannot separate these partsIt is is one componentTo cover the valve cover is to cover the crankcase vent valveIt is one part Therefore due to integrity and honoring the contract, rather than supposed "good will" the part and repair costs should be covered 100%The 50% that was paid did not even cover the labor cost which would have been the same for a valve cover replacement due to the part being the same in a BMW 328iSo we were held responsible for 100% of the part and a percentage of labor for a repair that should have been covered 100%Therefore, I do not accept the response givenI expect businesses to have integrity and honor their contracts instead of trying to find a way to screw over their customers when they feel a repair is too expensive Regards, [redacted]

RevDex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Furthermore, I sincerely appreciate the way that this representative of the business responded so quickly and professionally. Thanks to the representative and to BBB for their assistance and handling of this complaint. Regards, [redacted]

Ms. [redacted]   I am in receipt of the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted], however I am unable to...

locate his specific agreement in our system without an agreement number or the last 6 digits of his vehicle’s identification number.   If you could forward that information to us, we will review his contract and claims and respond accordingly.   Best regards,       [redacted]Director of Claims

Below is Service Guard's response to Complaint ID [redacted]. Please let us know if there are any questions or if any further action is required on our part. Thank you.
serif;"> The vehicle service contract referenced in the complaint provides coverage for repair or replacement of parts due to their failure. Coverage is on a stated component basis, meaning that all parts and components covered by the contract are listed in the Schedule of Coverages, and any part not listed in that Schedule is excluded from coverage. As noted in the complaint, the vehicle service technician reported to our company that the crankcase vent valve on vehicle in question failed and needed to be replaced. Crankcase vent valve is not listed in the Schedule of Coverages. The valve cover referenced in the complaint is listed as a covered component, however, there was no failure of that particular part. Despite our position that the part and repair costs are not covered by the contract in question, and as a gesture of good will to the customer, Service Guard agreed to pay 50%, or $554.81, of the repair cost. [redacted] Licensing & Compliance Administrator

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Furthermore, I sincerely appreciate the way that this representative of the business responded so quickly and professionally.  Thanks to the representative and to Revdex.com for their assistance and handling of this complaint.
Regards,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
"All parts and components covered by the contract are listed in the Schedule of Coverages." The valve cover referenced in the complaint is listed as a covered component. The crankcase vent valve and valve cover are the same part in a BMW 328i. You cannot separate these parts. It is is one component. To cover the valve cover is to cover the crankcase vent valve. It is one part.  Therefore due to integrity and honoring the contract, rather than supposed "good will" the part and repair costs should be covered 100%. The 50% that was paid did not even cover the labor cost which would have been the same for a valve cover replacement due to the part being the same in a BMW 328i. So we were held responsible for 100% of the part and a percentage of labor for a repair that should have been covered 100%. Therefore, I do not accept the response given. I expect businesses to have integrity and honor their contracts instead of trying to find a way to screw over their customers when they feel a repair is too expensive.
Regards,
[redacted]

I have reviewed all the information on this contract.  Based on the guidelines of the contract, our processor did what she believed was correct in not honoring the cancellation based on the original contract holder no longer having the vehicle in their name. With that being said, in this...

situation because it is the customer's daughter, we will honor the cancellation and are willing to refund the customer the full $1495 they paid for the contract.  Please let me know if this is acceptable, and I will have the refund sent out on 6/3/14 directly to the customer.  Thanks