BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
Metro Atlanta, Athens and NE Georgia

BBB Business Review

BBB Accredited Business since 01/14/2005

EasyCare

Find a Location

(678) 225-1000View Additional Phone Numbers6010 Atlantic Blvd, NorcrossGA 30071-1303 Send email to EasyCare

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since 01/14/2005

BBB has determined that EasyCare meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised EasyCare's rating include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
  • Response to 82 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
  • BBB has sufficient background information on this business.

Customer Complaints SummaryRead complaint details

82 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 26 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues1
Guarantee / Warranty Issues54
Problems with Product / Service27
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Total Closed Complaints 82

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (82)BBB Closure Definitions
10/14/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Disputed warranty coverage and/or terms

Complaint: Claims procedures are spelled out on the website for Mechanical Breakdown but not for Tire Road Hazard
I was out of town on a military trip (in a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ended up with a flat tire (ran over a rim weight in the road). I didn't have my contract in hand with me and only had the website for information. On the website it breaks down claim procedures for mechanical breakdowns but did not specify tire issues. I took my vehicle to a repair facility and had a new tire (the exact same kind as the others on the vehicle) installed. I did not memorize or remember what the written contract detailed on how to go about this process but did remember being told by the person who sold me this contract that there was a 'tire' reimbursement with the plan that I purchased in the event the tire was damaged by a road-hazard. The word 'reimbursement' led me to believe that once a tire was (in like kind), I could initiate a claim for 'reimbursement' when that process is not true at all. I had to get an approval for repair first and because of this over-site I am now stuck with the entire cost of replacing my tire rendering this contract worthless in the "tire protection" section. The claims representative made no attempt to resolve the confusion and didn't review the fact that this vehicle and tires are only 1 year old with proof of tire wear and damage. Instead, the company was okay with telling me that they won't cover the damage. In other words, unless the customer is in a position to get to their contract or have read and memorized the procures for using the contract, the contract is not worth having.

Initial Business Response
October 3, 2014

***** *******
Trade Practice Specialist
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System

Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: **********
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ****** ** **********
Issuing Dealer: ******** ******** ****
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. ********

Thank you for your email of September 25, 2014 notifying us of the complaint your office has received from Mr. ****** ********** in connection with a reimbursement request made under his vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC", referenced above. We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding this matter and ask that you please accept our letter in response to the concerns Mr. ********** has expressed. Your patience in awaiting our response has been very much appreciated.

As a preliminary matter, we would like to begin by explaining that while the coverage of Mr. **********'s VSC is certainly quite extensive, I'm afraid that it does not promise to cover everything that might possibly go wrong with his vehicle. It is not an insurance policy or an unlimited warranty, but is instead a simple commercial service contract between the issuing provider and the purchaser of the VSC, in this case ****** ** **********, which has agreed to "repair, replace or reimburse Mr. ********** for the reasonable cost to repair or replace any of the parts covered, if required due to a mechanical breakdown or failure," as those terms are defined in the contract. The VSC also contains several additional benefits - such as tire coverage in the event of a blow out or flat which results from a road hazard incident. These coverages are in effect for a specified period of time and vehicle mileage, and are also subject to the VSC's stipulated terms and conditions, limitations and exclusions.

For example: under § D (1) of Mr. ************ VSC, it states that "Authorization from the ADMINISTRATOR, verified by issuance of an authorization code, must be received before any repairs are performed under this VSC." This requirement is repeated in bold print at the bottom of the first and last page of Mr. **********'s vehicle service contract/application, as well as in the paragraph adjacent to the bold "YES!" found on page 1, and is again referenced under § E (1), captioned "What Is Not Covered" which specifies: "When repairs are performed without prior authorization;"

According to our records, we were first made aware of the tire issue Mr. ********** had experienced on September 23, 2014, when he called our office and reported that he had a tire replaced after a road hazard incident, on September 19, 2014, and he was inquiring about the process for obtaining reimbursement. Our records show that we immediately apologized and informed Mr. ********** that his service contract does require prior authorization - explaining that since prior authorization was not obtained, his VSC would not be able to assist with reimbursement. Mr. ********** expressed skepticism that such a requirement existed, so our customer service representative directed him to one of the more prominent locations in his VSC where this requirement could be found. However, upon locating the portion(s) of the VSC which stipulate the requirement for prior authorization, Mr. ********** abruptly ended the call without further comment.

Please understand that reimbursement typically cannot be provided for repairs that are performed without prior authorization for any number of underlying reasons - even aside from the most obvious one; that being the explicit exclusion stipulated in the contract language. If there were some extenuating circumstance such as when a repair is performed while our offices are closed, we would do our best to try to apply coverage after the fact. However, one of the other reasons that prior authorization is required is so that we have an opportunity to examine the vehicle and verify the cause and extent of any reported damage before repairs are performed. § D (1) of the service contract specifically states that "Upon OUR request, Mr. ********** must allow the ADMINISTRATOR to inspect his VEHICLE to gather necessary information regarding any claim." As the contract holder, it was Mr. **********'s responsibility to make sure that the claims procedures set forth in his service contract were properly followed in order for coverage to be applied. Since our offices were open on September 19, 2014 and the repair was performed without the contract's required prior authorization, it is also true that the right to inspect the vehicle and verify the reported failure(s) was precluded.

These realities notwithstanding, we truly regret that we appear to have failed to meet Mr. **********'s expectations; and we are disappointed to know there is a perception that we neglected to fully address his concerns in this instance. Indeed, despite the fact that our records are not consistent with such a conclusion - we are certainly agreeable to resuming our efforts to deliver an EasyCare experience, if Mr. ********** will permit it. To that end, we invite Mr. ********** to submit a copy of the repair order reflecting the tire replacement for his vehicle on or about September 19, 2014 of which he speaks. He may forward that documentation to me directly by fax at (XXX) XXX-XXXX, or he may call our customer service department at (XXX) XXX-XXXX to obtain a representative's fax number, or alternate methods to get the documentation to us, if necessary.

Please also note that the repair order/invoice Mr. ********** may submit must be complete, itemized, legible, and contain all the requisite information we would otherwise have obtained from his chosen licensed repair facility had prior authorization been sought. This means that it must include the vehicle information (year, make, model), the VIN, the repair date and vehicle odometer reading on that date, the diagnosed cause of failure, tire location, tread depth of the road hazard damaged tire, tire size, tire make/model and itemized charges for the tire, labor etc. If Mr. ********** will agree to adhere to the contract's terms and conditions and make sure that prior authorization is obtained for all future eligible repairs, we will agree to review the invoice in an effort to apply coverage as a one-time gesture of goodwill, in accordance with the other terms and conditions of his VSC by which we are bound, and in a good faith effort to address his concerns.

Under all these circumstances, we believe that the administrative office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Mr. **********'s VSC, in advising him it would not be able to provide reimbursement for repairs that were performed without the contract's required prior authorization. Nevertheless, we hope that we have successfully addressed Mr. **********'s concerns, and are similarly hopeful that we will be able to provide assistance with the tire replacement costs he recently incurred, to the limits of liability established by his VSC. We look forward to the opportunity to review Mr. **********'s invoice, and to providing further assistance should the circumstances arise during the remainder of his VSC's effective term. Of course, if you or Mr. ********** has any other questions or concerns in connection with this matter, please continue to direct any additional correspondence to my attention and I will be happy to expedite its review.

**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

10/02/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Disputed warranty coverage and/or terms

Complaint: It was never clear to me during purchase that I had to get pre-authorization
my membership number VXXXXXXXXX, last six digit VIN XXXXXX.

I was rejected for a reimbursement because I did not call in for preauthorize. It was a rush repair and during the warranty sale phase, I was never told that it's required. This is sale practice issue, as well as customer service.

Initial Business Response
September 18, 2014


***** *******
Trade Practice Specialist
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System

Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: VXXXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ******* ****
Issuing Dealer: ****** *****
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. Cleaves:

Thank you for your email of September 9, 2014 notifying us of the complaint your office has received from Ms. ******* **** in connection with a request made under her vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC", referenced above. We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding this matter and ask that you please accept our letter in response to the concerns Ms. **** has expressed. Your patience in awaiting our response has been very much appreciated.

As a preliminary matter, we would like to begin by explaining that while the coverage of Ms. ****'s VSC is certainly quite extensive, I'm afraid that it does not promise to cover everything that might possibly go wrong with her vehicle. It is not an insurance policy or an unlimited warranty, but is instead a simple commercial service contract that has agreed to "repair, replace or reimburse Ms. **** for the reasonable cost to repair or replace any of the parts covered, if required due to a mechanical breakdown or failure," as those terms are defined in the contract. This coverage is for a specified period of time and vehicle mileage, and it is also subject to certain stated terms and conditions, limitations and exclusions.

§ III (1) of Ms. ****'s VSC it stipulates the process by which a claim may be authorized, as follows:

IN CASE OF MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN OR FAILURE, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE BELOW:

1. In the event of MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, YOU may take YOUR VEHICLE to the SELLING DEALER, or if that is not practical, to any licensed repair facility. PRIOR AUTHORIZATION from the ADMINISTRATOR, verified by issuance of an authorization code, must be received before any repairs are performed under this CONTRACT. Once authorization has been received, and upon the ADMINISTRATOR'S receipt of a copy of the repair order signed by YOU, the ADMINISTRATOR will pay the authorized amount of the claim, less YOUR DEDUCTIBLE, directly to the repair facility using the ADMINISTRATOR'S MasterCard.

a. Have YOUR CONTRACT number, mileage and date of FAILURE ready for the ADMINISTRATOR.
b. Have the service representative contact the ADMINISTRATOR.

Upon OUR request, YOU must allow the ADMINISTRATOR to inspect YOUR VEHICLE to gather necessary information regarding any claim. Under certain conditions when a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE occurs, YOU may be required to have the VEHICLE returned to the SELLING DEALER.

The VSC requirement for prior authorization is repeated in bold type in several places throughout the contract, and § VI of the VSC entitled "WHAT IS NOT COVERED" also contains the following exclusion as the first bullet point under subsection "A":

When repairs are performed without prior authorization. In the event of a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE after the ADMINISTRATOR'S office hours, contact the ADMINISTRATOR as soon as reasonably possible to report the FAILURE;

According to our records, we were first made aware of the oil pan/leak problem Ms. **** mentioned in her correspondence to the Bureau, on the evening of September 2, 2014 when she called our office and reported that she had some type of oil pan repair performed the previous Tuesday or Wednesday (approximately 1 week earlier), and that she would like to be reimbursed for the costs incurred. Our records show that we immediately informed Ms. **** that her VSC does require prior authorization, and that since our office was open and we were available during the timeframe she described, we would unfortunately be unable to assist with reimbursement in this instance - as prior authorization for the repairs had not been obtained in accordance with the VSC terms that bind us both. Parenthetically, please allow me to also mention that we have not received any contact from Ms. ****'s chosen repair facility, either at the time of the repair she mentions, or at any time since.

As the contract holder, it was Ms. ****'s responsibility to make sure that the claims procedures set forth in her service contract were properly followed in order for coverage to be applied. Since our offices were open at the time, and these repairs were performed without the contract's required prior authorization, I'm afraid it also appears the administrator's latent right to inspect the vehicle and verify the reported failure was taken away. And, in addition to those two contractual obstacles, there may be a third. Namely, our records indicate Ms. ****'s 2010 Volkswagen Tiguan is covered under the manufacturer's powertrain warranty for a period of 5 years or 60,000 miles, whichever comes first. And, it appears that both the engine oil pan and oil pan gasket are eligible for coverage under that Volkswagen warranty. Of course, we do not presume to speak for Volkswagen and do not know the circumstances surrounding the diagnosed failures or what the odometer reading of Ms. ****'s vehicle was at the time the repairs she refers to were performed. However, our records do indicate that the original in-service date of her vehicle was August 6, 2010 - meaning that (by time, at least) the manufacturer powertrain warranty would not expire until August 5, 2015. Therefore, if Ms. ****'s vehicle had less than 60,000 miles at the time of her recent repair visit, it would seem as though this matter would also fall under the exclusion stipulated in § VI of the VSC entitled "WHAT IS NOT COVERED":

Of any part(s), component(s) or repair(s) described as covered by the manufacturer, distributor or importer's warranty for the term and mileage of such coverage at the time of first retail sale, regardless of whether such warranty for part(s), component(s) or repair(s): can or cannot be honored or collected or is invalidated
for any reason...

As you can see, there are many potential scenarios, and numerous obligations to perform due diligence which are undertaken by the administrator - and which are dependent upon the contract's provision for prior authorization in order to do so fairly and successfully. For example, in addition to verifying whether a mechanical breakdown or failure to a covered component has taken place the administrator must verify the amounts for parts and labor according to the VSC's limits of liability; and in this instance whether such presumed failures may be covered under an existing manufacturer warranty which would take precedence over the VSC coverage, among other things. Naturally, if the VSC stipulated procedures are not followed and the ability to perform necessary due diligence is prevented; the ability of the administrator to apply coverage is similarly prevented.

Under all these circumstances, we believe that the administrative office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Ms. ****'s VSC, in declining to provide reimbursement for repairs that were performed without the contract's required prior authorization. With that being said, if Ms. **** wishes to submit a complete, legible copy of the itemized invoice reflecting the repairs to which she refers in her complaint, to our office, we will review that invoice and research the matter further, in the interest of customer satisfaction. If we are then able to gather sufficient information after the fact, to satisfy all the VSC exclusions aside from the requirement for prior authorization, and if the resulting repair cost is determined to be in the neighborhood of the $242.00 Ms. **** reports, we will attempt to assist with reimbursement in that amount as a one-time gesture of goodwill in satisfaction of her request. Of course, we are unable to guarantee at this time that we will be successful in that effort, but we will certainly attempt it. And, we must also remind Ms. **** that should there be any contractual obstacle other than solely a failure to obtain prior authorization, we will be obligated to maintain the current disposition.

We hope that we have successfully addressed the concerns that Ms. **** has expressed regarding her VSC and recent repair visit, and would like to offer our sincere regret for any frustration or inconvenience she may have experienced thus far as a result of the administrator's obligation to abide by the terms of her contract. Of course, if you or Ms. **** has any other questions or concerns in connection with this matter, please direct any additional correspondence to my attention and I will be happy to expedite its review.

**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

09/16/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Unauthorized changes to the contract or agreement

Complaint: I signed for $100 deductible and they say it is now $250 on the contract.they changed the copy of the contract they kept after giving me my copy.
Product_Or_Service: vehicle service contract
Account_Number: egt jXXXXXX

Initial Business Response
September 8, 2014

***** *******
Trade Practice Specialist
Better Business Bureau
Posted to BBB's Online Complaint System

Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: XXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***** *****
Issuing Dealer: Momentum ********* of ****** *****
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. ********

Thank you for your recent email, notifying us of the complaint your office received from Mr. ***** ***** regarding a reimbursement request that was recently made under his vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC", referenced above. We have researched this matter and ask that you please accept this reply in response to the concerns Mr. ***** has expressed. Your patience in awaiting our reply has been very much appreciated.

We would like to begin by explaining that prior to Mr. *****'s recent claim and letter to your office, our records indicated Mr. ***** had completed an EasyCare Gold Vehicle Service Contract/Application for his 2009 Chevrolet Impala at ******** ********** ********* of ****** ***** on July 31, 2009, selecting a "MAX MILES VEHICLE TERM" of 7 years or 60,000 total vehicle miles, whichever came first, and a per-visit deductible of $250.00. The data corresponding to Mr. *****'s vehicle and VSC purchase was then transmitted electronically to our office and entered into our computer system, following which Mr. *****'s Customer Information Page with I.D. Cards containing this information were mailed to his address on or about September 25, 2009. Please note that our office did not receive an actual printed/physical copy of Mr. *****'s VSC/Application, and were not notified of a discrepancy in the per-visit deductible or any other term associated with the VSC, since the time he completed it in July 2009.

On August 25, 2014 we were contacted by the service department of *** ****** ********* hereinafter "JNC", who reported that Mr. *****'s vehicle had been driven to their location with complaints of a loud knocking sound coming from the right side of the dash area. *** had diagnosed the cause to be a failed air inlet actuator/motor, and requested authorization under the terms of Mr. *****'s VSC to replace it. The administrator proceeded to authorize the requested parts, labor, and tax amounts associated with that repair - but found the resulting balance to be less than the VSC's $250.00 per-visit deductible, meaning no net reimbursement could be provided for the repair costs.

However, immediately upon receiving your email on August 27, 2014, we took the liberty of contacting Mr. *****, and asked if he would send us a copy of the application he referenced in his complaint. Mr. ***** promptly forwarded an image of the "CUSTOMER" copy of his VSC/Application; and after examining it we found no clear indication that the $250.00 per-visit deductible option - or any other option - was marked. Therefore, as the application provides that "if nothing is marked, then $100 per visit", we proceeded to adjust the terms of his VSC to stipulate a $100.00 deductible instead of $250.00, at no cost to Mr. ***** whatsoever. Following the adjustment we contacted Mr. ***** to advise him of our resolution, and that we would not only comply with his request to adjust his per-visit deductible, but would like to re-visit his recent claim with the intent of providing reimbursement for whatever charges would otherwise be eligible under the revised deductible terms. Mr. ***** agreed, forwarded a copy of the invoice relating to the repairs performed, and on August 28, 2014 we authorized a net total of $94.12 in full payment of ****** invoice charges, less the new $100.00 per-visit deductible.

Accordingly, our records now indicate that check payment in the amount of $94.12 has been processed and mailed to Mr. *****, in full satisfaction of his concerns. A new package containing his adjusted Customer Information Page with I.D. Cards, and stipulating the revised per-visit deductible of $100.00 has also been requested and should be mailed to Mr. ***** shortly. Of course, we would again ask Mr. ***** to examine these documents upon their arrival and verify that they are all correct. Should he find any error or discrepancy, we ask that he call our office and notify us as soon as possible so that we may address it.

Under all these circumstances, we are pleased that Mr. *****'s VSC was ultimately able to provide reimbursement for the air inlet actuator repair expenses he incurred, less the adjusted per-visit deductible, and we sincerely regret any frustration or inconvenience he may have experienced as a result of what appears to have been an inadvertent data entry oversight. Our records indicate that Mr. *****'s VSC will remain in full force and effect until July 30, 2016 or a total odometer reading of 60,000 miles, whichever comes first, and we hope to be of greater assistance to him in the future, should the circumstances arise during the remainder of that effective period. As always, if you or Mr. ***** has any additional questions or concerns pertaining to this matter, please feel free to send them directly to my attention and I will expedite their review.

Sincerely,
**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
********** ********** *********** - ****

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

08/27/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Disputed warranty coverage and/or terms

Complaint: EasyCare builds in contract loopholes without safety in mind!!
8-2-2014
Contract #XXXXXXXXXXX

My wife and I originally purchased the EasyCare Tire & Wheel protection for our new vehicle at the time of purchase (08-2011). The reasoning was that the vehicle's tire and wheel package were alloy wheels and low-profile tires, which I knew would be a potential problem. Within the first 4 months (12-2011/01-2012)we had a blow out due to a pothole and the tire was replaced rather quickly.

Less than a year later (2012) there was a distinct bubble in the tires sidewall, which was again replaced without incident. Now, after 3 years of ownership both of the same passenger side tires have a distinct bubble, said to have been caused by the same pothole and now the company refuses to alleviate the problem, even though there is more than double (7/32) the minimum amount (3/32) of tread left to file a claim. I originally noticed only the one tire had a bubble and ETD Tire noticed the other.

Your representatives stated that the tire must have a blow out or be leaking air causing a flat. They were also told only to call back if an air leak (one leaking out of the sidewall rubber into the atmosphere). The cause of the bubble is that the radial belt within the tire has been penetrated by air, and is leaking into the sidewall rubber. I was also told the sidewall was not designed to hold air and would eventually cause a blowout. (ie unsafe to drive). The tire retailer was told by one of your EasyCare Representative, that there were many claims filed on this vehicle, and was thus making it more difficult for my wife and I.

My copy of the contract states that there must be damage caused by any road hazard which there is, and yet I am now wondering why I am paying for this warranty/insurance when your company doesn't care about safety? I was also told, that your companies contracts did not have bubbles listed in the original contracts, yet newer contracts do. This is completely unethical, and your company should revisit your companies standards on ethics and plain morals. No one should be, or feel taken advantage of!!!!

I hope your company sees it fit to make this situation right!!

Disheartened & Annoyed,


Response From EasyCare:

Mr. ********,

Thank you for taking the time to write and give me an opportunity to review your claim on your 2012 Hyundai Elantra XXXXXXXXXXX.

After review I found that the claim outcome is correct and apologize that we cannot assist with the replacement tires.



Right front and Right rear Tires

"no failure to tires as defined by the vehicle service contract"



Respectfully,

****

Claims Customer Service

XXX-XXX-XXXX

Initial Business Response
August 19, 2014


***** *******
Trade Practice Specialist
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System

Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: ECDJXXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***** ********
Issuing Dealer: ***** ******** *******
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX

Dear Ms. ********

Thank you for your email dated August 13, 2014 notifying us of the complaint your office has received from ****** ******** in connection with a recent tire replacement request made under ***** ********'s TIRECare vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC", referenced above. We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding this matter and ask that you please accept this letter in response to Mr. ********'s concerns. Your patience in awaiting our response has been very much appreciated.

As a preliminary matter, please understand that Ms. ********'s VSC is neither an insurance policy nor an unlimited warranty, and it doesn't promise to cover everything that could possibly go wrong with the tires on her vehicle. Instead, it is a simple commercial contract between the issuing provider and the contract holder, in this case ***** ********, under which the issuing provider agrees to reimburse her for the benefits listed in the coverage section of her VSC. This coverage is for a specified period of time and vehicle mileage, and is subject to certain stated terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions.

Since it is the service contract's tire coverage benefit that relates to Mr. ********'s complaint, we ask that he please refer to the description of that coverage found in the VSC, which states as follows:

TIRE: WE will pay by corporate MasterCard* for the cost to replace YOUR tires (original tires as supplied by the manufacturer and replacement tires of like kind and quality), for the length of this VSC, if damaged from glass, metal punctures or other road hazard on a public roadway. YOU must provide receipts. YOUR tire(s) must have at least 3/32" of tread depth AT TIME OF BLOW OUT OR FLAT FOR THIS COVERAGE TO APPLY. (EMPHASIS added)

According to our records, the administrative office was made aware of the recent tire issues on July 31, 2014 when we received a phone call from ETD Discount Tire Center hereinafter "ETD". They informed us that Ms. ********'s vehicle arrived at their service department earlier that day with an odometer reading of 25,723 miles and a complaint that both passenger side tires had bubbles in the sidewall. ETD advised that each tire had approximately 7/32" of tread remaining and that the appearance of bubbles may have been caused by impact with a pothole; but neither tire was blown out, flat, or losing air to the best of their knowledge, and they requested authorization under Ms. ********'s VSC to replace both right side tires. However, the administrator was prevented from issuing authorization since the criteria for eligibility under the terms and conditions of the VSC had not yet been met; as no blow out, flat, or even slow air loss destined to lead to a flat could be confirmed. Nevertheless, ETD expressed a willingness to examine the tires beyond their initial visual inspection and with Ms. ********'s permission - in an effort to see if they could detect air loss by other means, such as by dunking them in water etc. - and they advised they would call us back if anything was found.

Later that afternoon, we twice spoke to Mr. ******** when he called to request clarification of the claim status. During those conversations it was explained that while we were awaiting ETD's possible callback if they found air loss from either tire, the contract provisions by which both the administrator and Ms. ******** are bound stipulated that the affected tire(s) must suffer a blow out or flat in order to be eligible. Our records indicate that Mr. ******** understood the unfortunate reason the claim could not be authorized, and asked whether the administrator would be willing to re-examine the claim disposition if the tires became flat or leaked air at a later time. Of course, we explained that we would be happy to examine any subsequent claim in which a road hazard incident may cause a tire on Ms. ********'s vehicle to be blown out or flat, as long as VSC was not expired and the affected tire had at least 3/32" of tread depth at the time of that incident.

Regrettably, our office did not hear back from ETD regarding any potential finding of air loss from either tire; and the only ensuing contact other than your email was Mr. ********'s own email to our office on August 2, 2014, in which he expressed the same respectful concerns he included to the Better Business Bureau on August 12, 2014. Of course, in the continuing good faith pursuit of applying benefits consistent with the VSC terms, upon receipt of Mr. ********'s email we contacted ETD once again - to see whether they had been able to confirm a flat or air loss from either passenger side tire. Unhappily, ETD advised that no air loss had ever been diagnosed and that Ms. ******** had chosen to not replace either tire. A customer service representative then replied to Mr. ********'s correspondence accordingly.

As you will recall, Ms. ********'s VSC coverage is not unlimited, nor does it promise to cover any or all types of damage, defects, or cosmetic imperfections that can occur to a tire. According to the professional diagnosis provided by ETD in this instance, the tire replacements requested under Ms. ********'s service contract were unfortunately outside the limited scope of coverage the VSC provides; as even though there was some indication that one or possibly both tires were "damaged from...road hazard on a public roadway", neither tire met the parallel and equally necessary condition "...of blow out or flat FOR THIS COVERAGE TO APPLY." (EMPHASIS added) Therefore, while the administrative office would like to employ the preference Mr. ******** suggests - I'm afraid that doing so would cause it to act contrary to the terms and conditions which we are obligated to administer, and which bind both it and Ms. ********.

Under all these circumstances, we believe the administrative office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Ms. ********'s VSC in declining to assist with the replacement of tires which had not suffered blowout or flat. While we will always do whatever we can to authorize the performance of repairs that may become necessary for our contract holders' vehicles, we must apply that coverage in accordance with all of the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the service contracts that we administer. Naturally, we sympathize with Mr. ********'s disappointment at the claim disposition we have been obligated to deliver in this instance, and offer our sincere regret for any frustration or inconvenience he or Ms. ******** may have experienced as a result.

Despite this reality, we invite Ms. ******** to return her vehicle to ETD or another licensed repair facility in the event of any road hazard incident which results in air loss leading to blow out or flat of one of her vehicle's tire(s) - and request that repair facility call us to provide their diagnosis and estimate before the replacement of that tire/those tires. We will promptly arrange for an independent mechanical inspector on an independent contractor basis to examine the tires and confirm the cause and extent of damage, as well as air loss, blow out, or flat, in a persistent attempt to apply coverage according to the VSC terms. Our records indicate Ms. ********'s VSC will remain in full force and effect until August 7, 2016 or a total vehicle odometer reading of 75,000 miles, whichever comes first. We look forward to being able to provide greater assistance during the remainder of that active term; and ask that if you or Mr. ******** has any further questions or concerns pertaining to this matter, please feel free to contact me directly and I will expedite their review.

Sincerely,
**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
Automobile Protection Corporation-APCO

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

08/26/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Failure to honor service under the terms of warranties

Complaint: Serpentine belt, pulley and belt tensioner not covered with highest warranty coverage purchased
******** ***** ** ******service man, ******* and mechanic (named mike as well I believe) diagnosed chirping noise in my 09 c300 as pulley, belt and tensioner problem....car has been maintained only by Mercedes Benz....car was purchased at Mercedes Benz.....

******* ********* sold me this easy care warranty stating that everything except extreme technological items like seat warmers and navigation equipment would be covered....took car to Mercedes today July 31st....found out easy care will not cover it. I called them and they said they'll review the taped discussions between me and the salesperson Forrest ...

Initial Business Response
August 14, 2014

Ms. ***** *******
Trade Practice Specialist
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System


Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: **********
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ****** ** ********
Issuing Dealer: EasyCare Customer Care Center
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. Cleaves:

Thank you for your email correspondence dated August 4, 2014, notifying us of the complaint your office has received from Ms. ****** ******** in connection with a request for repairs that was recently made under her vehicle service contract, referenced above. We have researched our records with regard to this matter and we ask that you please accept this letter in response to the concerns that Ms. ******** has expressed. Your patience in awaiting our reply has been very much appreciated.

As a preliminary matter, we would like to clarify that while the coverage of Ms. ********'s vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC" is certainly quite extensive, I'm afraid that it does not promise to cover everything that could possibly go wrong with her vehicle. It is a simple commercial contract between the Service Agreement Company and the contract holder, in this case ****** ** ********, under which the Service Agreement Company agrees to "repair, replace or reimburse her for the reasonable cost to repair or replace any of the parts covered, if required due to a Mechanical Breakdown or Failure." A Mechanical Breakdown or Failure is, in turn, defined in the contract as "the inability of any covered part(s) to perform the function(s) for which it was designed due to defects in material or workmanship of that covered part." This coverage is for a specified period of time and vehicle mileage and is subject to certain stated limitations and exclusions. Furthermore, since our records reflect that Ms. ******** did specifically select the "STATEDCare" level of coverage, please note that only those items that are explicitly listed as covered in component groups 1-14 under the "WHAT IS COVERED" and "COVERAGE LEVELS" sections of the service contract are eligible for repair or replacement in the event of a Mechanical Breakdown or Failure.

According to our records, the Administrative Office was first made aware of the problems Ms. ********'s vehicle was experiencing on July 31, 2014 when we received a phone call from Mercedes Benz of Daytona Beach hereinafter "MBDB". They reported that the vehicle was driven in to their facility with complaints of a squeak noise and a shredded drive belt. Through their diagnosis, MBDB determined that both the accessory belt tensioner and idler pulley were worn out, and that the engine shock absorber was bent. Therefore, MBDB requested authorization under Ms. ********'s VSC to replace those 3 components and the related accessory drive belt. However, I'm afraid that among those requested repairs only the idler pulley was eligible for coverage under the VSC terms. Please allow me to explain further.

If you review the specific items listed in component groups 1-14 under the STATEDCare coverage of Ms. ********'s service contract you will see that, while the idler pulley is listed in group # 6 captioned: "AIR CONDITIONING", the remaining requested components are absent from the list of covered parts that Ms. ******** selected for her vehicle. As such, I'm afraid that no authorization could be granted to MBDB for the replacement of the drive belt tensioner, the engine shock, or the drive belt. In addition, § E (4) of Ms. ********'s service contract, entitled "What Is Not Covered," stipulates a specific exclusion for "repairs to any non-covered parts." And, § E (8, a.) contains a specific exclusion for the coverage of "belts". Efforts to find a component identification under which the remaining requested components could be deemed "eligible" also fell short. For example, while "Guides and Tensioners" are listed in component group #1 - they are so listed within and as part of a grouping of internal engine components associated with an engine's timing chain or timing belt (as it may be equipped) only. Sadly, while Ms. ********'s vehicle does indeed utilize a timing chain - with an associated tensioner and guides - that tensioner was not the one failed in this instance, but was instead the external accessory drive belt tensioner, a component not listed as eligible.

Despite this reality, the administrative office did proceed to authorize the applicable part price and labor necessary to replace the failed idler pulley. However, the amount of that authorization fell below the VSC's per-visit deductible, effectively resulting in no repair assistance under the VSC terms. Nevertheless, the administrator was able to authorize 4 days of substitute rental car at $30.00 per day and totaling $120.00 (in conjunction with and contingent upon the ultimate repair of the idler pulley during Ms. ********'s visit to MBDB) - an additional benefit afforded by her VSC, but which is NOT subject to the per-visit deductible. At this time, we are awaiting the receipt of Ms. ********'s rental agreement from a licensed rental agency corresponding to those 4 days and her repair visit, and MBDB's itemized repair invoice reflecting the performance of the idler pulley replacement, to issue reimbursement for the authorized rental.

Upon receipt of your email notification and our review of Ms. ********'s respectful comments, we did also reach out to the EasyCare Customer Care Center to request their input regarding the recorded conversations between their representative and Ms. ********, as she referenced in her complaint. Upon doing so, we were informed that the conversations to which Ms. ******** refers were identified and reviewed; and that they confirmed the proper representation of her STATEDCare VSC at the time of its offering and selection. We were also informed that Ms. ******** was subsequently contacted by their office, briefed on the results of their research and customer service audit, then offered the opportunity to listen to the recordings for her own satisfaction and relief if she so chose. At this time it is our understanding that Ms. ******** accepted the result of the Customer Care Center's review, and politely declined to listen to the recordings that supported it.

Under all these circumstances, we believe that the Administrative Office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Ms. ********'s service contract, in declining to authorize the replacement of the drive belt tensioner, engine shock, and drive belt: all non-covered components. We are truly sorry that her VSC was not able to provide greater assistance with the requested repairs in this instance, and we sincerely regret any frustration or inconvenience that Ms. ******** may have experienced as a result. Please understand that although we will always do whatever we can to authorize the performance of repairs that may become necessary for our contract holders' vehicles, we must apply that coverage in accordance with all of the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the service contracts we administer. Our records indicate that Ms. ********'s VSC will remain in full force and effect until July 10, 2017 or 99,926 total odometer miles (whichever first occurs), and we look forward to the opportunity to provide her with greater assistance in the future, should the circumstances arise.

If you or Ms. ******** has any further questions or concerns, or if there is any new or additional information that you would like for us to consider, please feel free to direct them to my attention and I will be happy to expedite their review.

Sincerely,

**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

Page 1 of 14
08/27/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Disputed warranty coverage and/or terms

Complaint: I purchased a car with an extended warranty. When I asked him for the paperwork, he gave me a card from the glove compartment that listed the coverages and contact information, told me that he would be transferring the policy to me, and that he would mail me the actual contract when he returned home. He called me a couple of days later said that transferring the warranty required sending in the actual contract. I thanked him and got on about my business. Six months later, I went in to get service done on the car, called to check coverages, was told that the warranty would cover most of the work but that the dealer had to make the claim, gave the dealer the proper information, and was called by the company who told me that the policy was not in my name and that it was too late to transfer it. I spoke to the owner and was told that he had sent in the paperwork required to transfer the warranty. I called back Easy Care and was given no help to resolve the issue.
Product_Or_Service: Extended Warranty Vehicle
Account_Number: **********

Initial Business Response
August 15, 2014

Ms. ***** *******
Trade Practice Specialist
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System


Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: **********
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. ********

Thank you for your email correspondence dated August 12, 2014, notifying us of the complaint your office has received from ***** ******* ********, and in which it appears Mr. ******** is identifying the vehicle service contract referenced above. We have researched our records with regard to this matter and we ask that you please accept this letter in response to the concerns that Mr. ******** has expressed. Your patience in awaiting our reply has been very much appreciated.

As a preliminary matter, please understand that we cannot provide any identifying information regarding the contract holder of record; as such an act could be construed as a violation of privacy laws. However, we can inform you that ***** ******* ******** is not the contract holder of record for the above referenced vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC". Furthermore, we have been unable to locate any evidence that Mr. ******** purchased a service contract on the vehicle associated with the VSC from any of our affiliated dealers; nor has our research indicated an attempt on the part of the contract holder of record to submit a request to transfer this service contract into Mr. ********'s name, in accordance with the VSC terms for such a transfer.

According to our records, a VSC was purchased for the related vehicle by the contract holder of record (again, not Mr. ********) in July 2012. The VSC contains a section explicitly setting forth the transfer guidelines, which are as follows:

K. TRANSFER OF THIS CONTRACT
Contact the ADMINISTRATOR and submit the following:
1. A letter requesting that WE transfer this VSC to the
new owner.
2. $50 transfer fee.
3. This VSC.
4. Written evidence verifying all maintenance
requirements have been met.
5. A copy of documentation evidencing change of
ownership and mileage at date of sale.
6. Photocopies of documents sent to the manufacturer
verifying transference of factory warranty, if
applicable.

Conditions:

1. This VSC cannot be transferred to another vehicle.
It can only be transferred to a different private owner
of the same VEHICLE.
2. The VEHICLE is subject to inspection.
3. Transfer must take place within 30 days of change
of ownership.
4. YOU may not transfer this VSC to a vehicle dealer
or to the customer of a vehicle dealer.
5. CONTRACTS on leased VEHICLES cannot be
transferred, unless original lessee is purchasing
the VEHICLE.
6. All remaining underlying warranties must be
transferred to the new owner.

According to information we have obtained from CarFax, the vehicle was most recently sold to a new owner in December 2013, and was registered in Virginia in early 2014 - consistent with the general timeframe suggested by Mr. ******** in his complaint. However, according to our records the previous owner and contract holder of record did not apply for a transfer of the service contract, submit the required documentation, or provide the transfer fee. Since the contract clearly stipulates that such a transfer must take place within 30 days of the change of ownership, this service contract is no longer eligible for transfer. Of course, it appears that Mr. ********'s first attempt to make a claim under the service contract was not until July 1, 2014, which was also well outside of the 30-day limit for transfer eligibility. Accordingly, that attempt to make a claim was denied, because again, Mr. ******** is not the contract holder of record and the true contract holder of record has never executed a transfer of this service contract into Mr. ********'s name.

Under all these circumstances, I'm afraid that the contract is now void, with the only exception being that the contract holder of record can still cancel the contract for a pro-rata refund of the remaining contract term, less the applicable cancellation fee, at any time up until the contract's expiration. This reality notwithstanding, should Mr. ******** wish to reach out to the party from whom he purchased his vehicle and ask that party to provide our office with copies of a cancelled check representing the VSC's transfer fee they believe was received and negotiated by this office within 30 days of the change in ownership, and the other documents representing such a transfer request consistent with the explicit VSC stipulations outlined above - we would be happy to receive and attempt to validate them. We are always willing to re-examine our position on the basis of new information and the receipt of verifiable documentation which supports it. Indeed, as Mr. ******** will undoubtedly recall - this good faith effort to address his concerns was reiterated to him directly no fewer than 3 times during his phone conversations with our Transfer Department customer service representative, the Transfer Department Supervisor, and the Vice President of Claims, on July 1, 2014.

In the meantime though, we are obligated to conclude that the contract can no longer be transferred. We apologize for any frustration or inconvenience these truths may cause Mr. ********, but the simple fact is there is no existing method by which repair coverage or other benefits can be applied by this office since there is no known contractual relationship between Mr. ******** and the VSC administrator. We sincerely hope our letter has been helpful in providing a clearer explanation of the matter brought to your attention by Mr. ******** - and if you or he have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to direct your future correspondence to my attention and I will expedite its review.

**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO


Initial Consumer Rebuttal
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
APCO's "setup" of this contract and "arrangements" for it's transfer depend on actions of the seller. The information provided to the buyer, since the original paperwork is returned to them in that process (i.e. the proof of warranty, claim cards that are designed to be left in the glove compartment), mentions nothing about the fact that the warranty does not "follow" the vehicle. By not requiring that the paperwork be sent in registered mail, they leave the transfer process up to the vagaries of the U.S. Mail and their own internal procedures. For these reasons, I do not find their response adequate to the original complaint. I did what I was supposed to do. The original owner did what he was supposed to do. And yet, the extended warranty did not cover the car when it was needed. That is the issue and what they need to address. I clearly gave the resolution that would be successful. I.E. refunding the original contract purchase amount or transferring the contract to me and covering the repairs minus the deductible and transfer fee.

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

03/20/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Disputed warranty coverage and/or terms

Complaint: Easy Care refuses to pay for a replacement wheel, even though they acknowledge the rim is bent.
I hit a pothole in my car. Both tires on the passenger side were damaged. An Easy Care inspector went to the dealership and agreed to replace the front rim and tire, as the rim literally cracked in half. However, the inspector denied replacement to the rear wheel, even though he acknowledged the rim is bent. Because the tire is not leaking air, they refuse to pay for replacement. They are willing to let me drive around a tire on a bent rim instead of doing the right thing and replacing the acknowledged damaged wheel.

Initial Business Response
March 5, 2014

***** *******
Dispute Resolution Counselor
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System

Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: XXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***** *******
Issuing Dealer: ***
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. ********

Thank you for your email of February 21, 2014 notifying us of the complaint your office has received from Mr. ***** ******* in connection with a recent tire and wheel replacement request made under his DriverCare TireCare vehicle service contract, referenced above. We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding this matter and ask that you please accept this letter in response to Mr. *******'s concerns. Your patience in awaiting our response has been very much appreciated.

As a preliminary matter, please understand that Mr. *******'s DriverCare TireCare vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC" is neither an insurance policy nor an unlimited warranty, and it doesn't cover everything that could possibly go wrong with the wheels or tires on his vehicle. Instead, it is a simple commercial contract between the issuing provider and the contract holder, in this case ***** *******, under which the issuing provider agrees to reimburse him for the benefits listed in the coverage section of his VSC. This coverage is for a certain period of time and vehicle mileage and, since Mr. ******* selected TireCare coverage, the vehicle components specifically listed under the "Wheel" and "Tire" categories of the "What Is Covered" section are the only components eligible for repair or replacement during the effective period - subject, of course, to the contract's stated terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions.

In order to properly address Mr. *******'s concerns, we ask that he please refer to the description of his wheel coverage under the "What Is Covered" section of his VSC, which states as follows:

WHEEL: WE will pay by corporate MasterCard* for the cost of repair or, if non-repairable, to replace YOUR wheels (original wheels as supplied by the manufacturer and replacement wheels of like kind and quality) rendered unserviceable due to the road hazard damage of a tire from glass, metal punctures or other road hazard on a public roadway. Unserviceable means that the wheel is unable to seal with the tire, resulting in air loss. YOU must provide receipts. YOUR tire(s) must have at least 3/32" of tread depth at time of blow out or flat for this coverage to apply.

And, the stipulation found directly under the heading "TERMS AND CONDITIONS":

NO PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS VSC OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS

According to our records, the administrative office has been made aware of tire/wheel damage related to Mr. *******'s vehicle three times thus far during his VSC term. The first two examples occurred on October 28, 2013 and January 27, 2014 when we received calls from the service personnel at ****** hereinafter "RB". In the first instance RB advised Mr. *******'s vehicle had been driven to their location with a complaint that the tire light was on and the left rear tire had been losing air. RB diagnosed a screw in the inner shoulder of that tire and authorization to replace it was immediately granted by the administrator in the requested amount of ******** Similarly, in the second instance RB advised Mr. *******'s vehicle arrived with a complaint that the right front tire was blown out from hitting a pothole. After gathering the necessary information and estimate to adjust the claim, the administrative office again immediately provided authorization to replace that tire as well. In each case our office promptly issued payment by corporate credit card immediately upon receiving RB's invoices, and according to the itemized billing found on those invoices which applied to the authorized repairs.

On February 17, 2014 our office received a call from RB to initiate the third and most recent claim, reporting Mr. *******'s vehicle had been towed to their location with the tire light on. RB's diagnosis found the right front tire blown out and the right front wheel cracked; and they requested authorization under the VSC to replace that tire and wheel. Due to the extent of the reported damage we arranged for an independent inspector, on an independent contractor basis, to examine the vehicle and verify the fact and cause of the reported failures. An inspector was assigned immediately following RB's call, and was able to examine the vehicle the very next morning, calling in his verbal report from RB's location at that time.

The inspector began his report by noting the left front wheel drum was cracked, about half way around the wheel in the center of the barrel, there was a small bend on the inner lip of that wheel, and a screw in the inner shoulder of the tire at that location. The tire had a tread depth of 7/32", and the inspector concluded his report noting damage consistent with a pothole impact to the left front wheel, with debris damage to the tire. Please understand that we are unable to explain the apparent inconsistency between RB's original diagnosis and Mr. *******'s complaint - which both indicated damage to the right front wheel/tire - and the physical, in-person, independent verification of damage to the left front wheel/tire. However, a representative of RB signed the inspector's report without addition or comment, indicating complete agreement with its findings. Accordingly, the administrative office again promptly closed the claim, providing authorization for the replacement of the left front wheel and tire in the amount of ********

Later on February 18, 2014, RB contacted our office to check eligibility for a tire pressure monitoring sensor they found damaged. Unhappily, that component is not eligible for coverage under the VSC, so we were obligated to decline assistance with that addition. Then, on the afternoon of February 19, 2014, RB again called back to report that after replacing the left front wheel and tire they had detected a vibration which they believed was caused by a bent left rear wheel. However, RB confirmed there was no flat, blowout, or air loss at the left rear wheel. Therefore, it did not fit the definition of an unserviceable wheel as the VSC explicitly defines it, and was therefore outside the limited scope of coverage the VSC provides.

As you will recall, Mr. *******'s VSC coverage is not unlimited, nor does it promise to cover any or all types of damage or defects that can occur with a tire or wheel. Clearly, the administrative office has never hesitated to provide the full measure of coverage permitted by the VSC terms, during any claim brought to our attention since its inception. Nevertheless, while we certainly understand and sympathize with Mr. *******'s plea that coverage be afforded to replace a wheel that does not meet the eligibility requirements established in the contract which binds us; we must respectfully advise that we are unable to waive the provisions of his VSC to meet his request to pay for a damaged wheel, "regardless of the tire not leaking air".

Under all these circumstances, we believe that the administrative office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Mr. *******'s VSC in authorizing the repair or replacement for all eligible tires and wheels brought to its attention in the manner the VSC prescribes, but declining to assist with a wheel repair when it was reported that the wheel was still able to seal with the tire mounted to it - resulting in no air loss and thereby falling outside the VSC definition of "unserviceable". We are sorry we were not able to provide greater assistance in this instance, and we sincerely regret any frustration or inconvenience Mr. ******* may have experienced as a result. While we will always do whatever we can to authorize the performance of repairs that may become necessary for our contract holders' vehicles, we must apply that coverage in accordance with all of the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the service contracts that we administer.

We hope that our response has given Mr. ******* a clearer understanding of his VSC's tire and wheel coverage and why no additional authorization could be granted in this instance. We do appreciate the privilege of being Mr. *******'s VSC provider and we hope to be of greater assistance to him in the future, should the circumstances arise during the remainder of the contract's effective period. Of course, if you or Mr. ******* has any further questions or concerns pertaining to this matter, please feel free to contact me directly and I will expedite their review.

Sincerely,

**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO


Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Again, they are willing to let me drive my car on a bent rim. No worries. I'll never use this company again. It's disgusting.

Final Business Response
March 19, 2014

***** *******
Dispute Resolution Counselor
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System

Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: XXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***** *******
Issuing Dealer: XXXXX
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX

Dear Ms. ********

Thank you for your follow-up email correspondence of March 11, 2014 in which you notified us of the additional comments that Mr. ******* has supplied with regard to this matter. Naturally, we are saddened to learn that we seem to have failed to fully deliver what Mr. ******* may have hoped for in this instance. Of course, we also sympathize with the genuine frustration he has expressed, but must again apologize that we are without a method to waive his contract's provisions in pursuit the additional coverage Mr. ******* seeks. Indeed, such an abrogation would be contractually identical to a unilateral determination that any/each of the three successive eligible and proper authorizations his contract has thus far issued - were themselves erroneous and should not have been granted. Clearly, either path would be without merit, if the parties are to maintain the integrity that the contract agreement intended; an integrity which is integral to the superior customer service experience we strive to deliver to each and every one of our valued contract holders.

Please understand and recall from our original response that Mr. *******'s vehicle service contract does not represent an all-encompassing coverage for every event that may occur with respect to his wheels and tires, regardless of cause or circumstance. I would ask that you please refer to that substantive response of March 5, 2014 for a detailed account of this matter and a thorough description of our position, if necessary. Obviously, we would not presume to dictate or direct how or whether Mr. ******* must operate his vehicle; but history demonstrates that his service contract has repeatedly authorized every eligible repair that has been brought to its attention as its terms and conditions require. Notwithstanding Mr. *******'s recent disappointment caused by his service contract's inability to assist with an additional wheel replacement which did not meet the contract's eligibility requirements, we hope and trust he will realize increasing solace in knowing that we remain committed to delivering the full measure of coverage his contract provides, throughout its remaining term.

Our records indicate Mr. *******'s DriverCare TireCare vehicle service contract will remain in force until April 22, 2015 or a total odometer reading of 45,000 miles, whichever comes first. As always, if you have any other questions or concerns in connection with this matter, please feel free to send them directly to my attention and I will be happy to address them promptly.

Sincerely,
**** *****
Claims Legal Analyst
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

02/10/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Guarantee or Warranty Complaint Issue

Complaint: I purchased a new vehicle in 2003 and purchased a Gap Insurance policy from the Aegis Group. I paid off the vehicle early and the Insurance company should have refunded me the prorated portion of the policy. I never received any refund.
Product_Or_Service: 04/21/2003
Account_Number: ************XXXXX

Initial Business Response
Contact Name and Title: **** *****************
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: ***********************
January 27, 2014

Better Business Bureau
503 Oak Place Suite 590
College Park, Georgia XXXXX
Attention: ***** *******

Re: BBB Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Borrower: ****** *****
GAP enrollment: ***XXXXXXX

Ms. ********

Automobile Protection Corporation Hereinafter APCO is in receipt of your correspondence of January 13, 2014. Thank you for notifying APCO of the complaint you have received from Mr. ***** regarding his recent request to cancel the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum purchased from ****** ****** ****. As a preliminary matter, we would like to state that we greatly appreciate the time that Mr. ***** has taken to write and share his concerns regarding the cancellation of his GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum. We consider the input of customers to be vital in our ongoing efforts to make improvements in the training of personnel and administration of GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum programs. Therefore, correspondence such as his presents a valuable opportunity for us to examine and correct possible deficiencies in our internal procedures so that we may continue to ensure our customers' satisfaction with the services we provide. We have reviewed our records in connection with this matter and we ask that you please accept this letter in response to the concerns Mr. ***** has expressed.

Please note that the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum is not an insurance product. The GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum is an agreement between the Customer and the Dealer/Assignee to waive a loan balance in case of an eligible total loss to the covered vehicle. APCO is the administrator of the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum only, and not a party to the contract. Upon receipt of your correspondence, APCO researched our records and found that no cancellation request from Mr. ***** or ****** ****** **** was received by our office. Please note that any refund which would have been due at the time Mr. ***** paid off the loan on the vehicle would have been issued from the dealership where the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum was purchased, as the dealership is the entity that was paid the purchase price for the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum. Our records indicate the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum was in effect for a term of 72 months, and expired on April 22, 2009. As APCO is not a party to the financing contract nor affiliated with any lenders, APCO would not have been notified that Mr. ***** had paid off the loan on the vehicle. We would ask Mr. ***** to refer to his GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum under TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

e. This Deficiency Waiver Addendum is cancelable upon completion of the GAP Cancellation form at the originating dealer and is subject to the effective date of the cancellation not being prior to the date the cancellation form is completed at the originating dealer. This addendum may be flat canceled within sixty (60) days of the effective date, after sixty (60) days any refunds will be calculated at the Rule of 78s unless otherwise required by state law. However, in the event of a total loss to the covered vehicle, the Addendum will be deemed as fully earned, and therefore, no refund will be due.

As the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum is no longer in force, APCO regrets that we are not able to assist with Mr. *****' cancellation request. We trust this information has addressed the concerns expressed by Mr. *****, however should additional questions or concerns arise, Mr. ***** should contact me directly to discuss.


Sincerely,

**** ** *********
******** ****** *******
****** ******* ********** *******
Automobile Protection Corporation


Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Greetings,
I read the response from Ms. ********* and would like to state that at no time did I mention the dealership from which I purchased the vehicle. Obviously, she has some record of when the vehicle and Gap insurance was purchased. The letter I received from the lien holder states that I could contact the insurance company directly and request a refund. It does not give parameters of a time frame. The letter I received from the lien holder states that the loan was paid off on April 23, 2008 a full year before the loan would have matured.
I should be refunded the one year of coverage I did not use.
Respectfully,
****** ** *****

Final Business Response
February 10, 2014

Better Business Bureau
503 Oak Place Suite 590
College Park, Georgia XXXXX
Attention: ***** *******

Re: BBB Case Number: XXXXXXXX
Borrower: ****** *****
GAP enrollment: ***XXXXXXX

Ms. ********

Thank you for notifying APCO of the additional comments Mr. ***** has provided regarding his recent request to cancel the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum purchased from ****** ****** ****. We ask that you please accept this letter in response to the additional concerns Mr. ***** has expressed.

Please allow me to reiterate that the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum is not an insurance product, but rather an agreement between the Customer and the Dealer/Assignee to waive a loan balance in case of an eligible total loss to the covered vehicle. APCO is the administrator of the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum only, and not a party to the contract.
Also, please allow me to clear any confusion in regards to the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum - at no time did APCO mean to imply that the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum was not submitted to our office by ****** ******* ****. Our records indicate they Waiver was submitted to our office with the appropriate administrative fee to secure APCO's services to act as the administrator in 2003 at the time Mr. ***** purchased the vehicle and the GAP Deficiency Waiver. Our records also indicate the Gap Deficiency Waiver Addendum was for a specific term of 72 months and that during that 72 month term, the GAP Deficiency Waiver remained active and in effect, expiring only at the end of that 72 month term on April 22, 2009.


Upon receipt of your initial correspondence, APCO researched our records and found that no cancellation request from Mr. ***** or ****** ****** **** was received by our office. Additionally, we must reiterate that that any refund which would have been due at the time Mr. ***** paid off the loan on the vehicle would have been issued from the dealership where the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum was purchased, as the dealership is the entity that was paid the purchase price for the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum, whereas APCO was paid only a nominal fee to act as the administrator.

As the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum is no longer active, APCO regrets that we are not able to assist with Mr. *****' cancellation request. The GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum is no longer in force due to its natural expiration date having passed, and there is simply no availability to predate a cancellation prior to the expiration of the GAP Deficiency Waiver Addendum. We regret that we are not able to horror Mr. *****' request. Should Mr. ***** wish to discuss further, he is welcome to contact me directly.

Sincerely,

**** ** *********
******** ****** *******
****** ******* ********** *******
Automobile Protection Corporation



Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

11/04/2013Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Disputed warranty coverage and/or terms

Complaint: Failed to cover a known defect due to creative terminology.
I purchased an Easycare Totalcare warranty on a used vehicle through ***** *** in ******* ****** ** on a **** *** ***** I purchased this vehicle on a sunday and was NOT given ample time to review the warranty coverage but the salesman kept assuring me that it was "TotalCare" and "everything was covered even the tires". Yesterday I brought my vehicle in for repair due to an issue with the vehicle stumbling and idling very poorly. The mechanic diagnosed the problem as faulty injectors and called Easycare for authorization on this $1200 repair only to be told that the warranty does not cover "clogged" injectors only defective injectors. I called and argued with the representative that clogged injectors are faulty. I also informed him that i've read and been told by several Factory trained BMW mechanics that this is a known issue for these models and is not something that is preventable. So basically I spent $4500 on a warranty that will even cover a commonly occurring issue which costs $1200. The whole point of paying for a "Totalcare" warranty is so that I would not have to come out of pocket for large expensive repairs. Had I known that basic expensive repairs like this would not be covered I would have just put that $4500 in a savings account for situations like this. So glad I was tricked out of this money due to some crafty wording in a subsection of this "contract" I recommend everyone stay away from this company

Initial Business Response
Ms. ***** *******
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System


Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: ****XXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ****** ** *****
Issuing Dealer: ****** *********
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. Cleaves:

Thank you for your email correspondence dated October 3, 2013 notifying us of the complaint your office has received from Mr. **** ***** in connection with a request for repairs that was recently made under his vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC", referenced above. We have researched our records with regard to this matter and we ask that you please accept this letter in response to the concerns that Mr. ***** has expressed. Your patience in awaiting our reply has been very much appreciated, and we would like to mention that our records indicate the spelling of the gentleman's name is ********** Therefore, we respectfully request both yours and his indulgence during this response while we use that spelling, and we invite confirmation of the correct spelling so that we may correct our records, if necessary.

As a preliminary matter, please understand that while the coverage of Mr. ******** VSC is certainly quite extensive, it does not cover everything that could possibly go wrong with his vehicle, nor does it promise to cure symptoms or keep the vehicle in good running order in the absence of a mechanical breakdown or failure. Under § B of the VSC, captioned "Our Responsibilities," the Service Agreement Company agrees to "repair, replace or reimburse Mr. ***** for the reasonable cost to repair or replace any of the parts covered, if required due to a Mechanical Breakdown or Failure." The contract defines a Mechanical Breakdown or Failure as "the inability of any covered part(s) to perform the function(s) for which it was designed due to defects in material or workmanship of that covered part." This coverage is for a specified period of time and vehicle mileage, and is subject to certain stated terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions.

According to our records, we were first made aware of the problems that Mr. ******** vehicle was experiencing on October 3, 2013 when we received a phone call from ****** ******* hereinafter "**". They reported that Mr. ***** had driven his vehicle to them the previous day with complaints of an engine stumble and rough running in the morning, and an oil leak. ** had not yet diagnosed the oil leak complaint, but they did report that fuel injectors #1, 2, and 3 were clogged with carbon, causing the rough idle and engine stumble Mr. ***** mentioned. The administrator apologized to ** and advised that if their diagnosis was correct, the VSC would unfortunately not be able to apply coverage to the replacement of injectors - as a condition of clogging did not represent a defect in material or workmanship. However, we did ask them to obtain Mr. ******** permission to complete the diagnosis of the oil leak and call us back with the identified cause(s) of failure along with an estimate for repairs so that we may continue the claim evaluation. Following a brief discussion with Mr. ***** in which we explained the diagnosed condition that was preventing his VSC from applying coverage to the fuel injectors, ** called back later on October 3, 2013 to advise their remaining diagnosis had determined engine oil leaks from the oil pan gasket, the oil filter housing gasket, and the timing tensioner seal. ** provided an estimate for those repairs which our adjuster immediately authorized, adding 5 days of substitute transportation coverage for a net total of $1,624.67 in benefits after the per-visit deductible. An extra day of rental vehicle coverage was added on October 8, 2013 and on October 9, 2013 ** submitted their invoice reflecting the performance of the authorized repairs, Enterprise submitted Mr. ******** rental agreement, and payments by corporate credit card were promptly sent to each via facsimile and telephone confirmation, totaling $1,651.79.

We understand by Mr. ******** comments that he believes the clogged injectors are "faulty", that this condition was not preventable, that he expected the VSC to cover the replacement of such components in order that he could avoid the admittedly inconvenient and undesirable expense of doing so himself, and that the VSC's inability to do so is based upon an application of "creative terminology" or "crafty wording". While we certainly regret and can understand Mr. ******** irritation and disappointment, we must ask that he recall that the service contract does not promise to replace components regardless of whether they have actually failed or what has caused their failure. It only promises to repair those covered components in the event that they actually have experienced a mechanical breakdown or failure due to defects in material or workmanship. In this instance and based upon **** diagnosis, 3 injectors were not performing properly as a result of being clogged by carbon buildup.

We must remember that whether the cause of the reported clogging was carbon flakes, fuel additive deposits, or some other contaminant - these are simply not materials the injectors or any other vehicle component were manufactured with, nor would the diagnosed deposits represent debris or residue from the mechanical breakdown of the injectors or any other component. As such, such external influences cannot be considered "defects in material or workmanship of that covered part" - the criteria the VSC establishes as a prerequisite for coverage. Indeed, in the absence of the contaminants - the injectors would presumably perform as they were designed, with no symptom and no need for either repair or replacement. Clearly, while the fuel injectors are covered components under Mr. ******** VSC, based on the diagnosis provided by **, and unlike the multiple oil seals and gaskets ** did diagnose as having suffered a mechanical failure on the same repair visit, their replacement was not eligible for coverage under the terms and conditions of his service contract because they simply had not experienced a defect in materials or workmanship. Moreover, § E of the VSC, captioned "What Is Not Covered," stipulates a specific exclusion for the repair "Of a covered part which is damaged by or as a result of....fuel or lubricant contamination...regardless of cause".

Under all these circumstances, we believe that the administrative office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Mr. ******** VSC, in authorizing reimbursement for the repair of components which had suffered a mechanical breakdown or failure, and declining to authorize fuel injector repairs when no mechanical breakdown or failure to them had occurred. Of course, if ** (or any other licensed repair facility) is able to demonstrate a true defect in material or workmanship to the injectors or any other covered components, at any point during the remainder of the service contract's effective period, we will be more than happy to arrange for an independent inspection of the vehicle to verify the mechanical breakdown(s) in faithful pursuit of the authorization Mr. ***** seeks.

In the meantime, please allow us to express our sincere apologies to Mr. ***** for the frustration he expressed in his letter. We hope after reading our reply he will have a better understanding of why and how his claim was properly adjusted; and how the disposition was not the result of any attempt at clever manipulation - but merely a necessary and honest application of the terms and conditions which bind us both. Nevertheless, we remain grateful for the opportunity to be Mr. ******** VSC provider, are pleased to have been able to apply $2,329.97 in benefits thus far, and look forward to being of further assistance in the future during the remainder of the VSC term. Our records indicate Mr. ******** VSC will remain in force until January 28, 2015 or a vehicle odometer reading of 91,407 miles, whichever comes first. As always, if you or Mr. ***** has any additional questions or concerns pertaining to this matter, please feel free to send them directly to my attention and I will expedite their review.

Sincerely,


**** *****
****** ***** *******
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO


Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I stand by my statements that this wording is a crafty way to avoid fixing a well know well documented defect in design and implementation by the manufacturer or if you like "a defect in material and workmanship". They poor design of the motor creates an impossible to fix situation which results in carbon build up on the mechanical injectors which results in failure. However you want to word it, its a defect. Yes you have performed $2329.97 worth of issues. That's great of you to do considering I paid $4500 for this policy... I should have saved that money i spent on your crummy policy; then at least I would be able to fix my vehicle properly!

Final Business Response
October 31, 2013


Ms. ***** *******
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System


Vehicle Service Contract Number: ****XXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ****** ** *****
Issuing Dealer: ****** *********
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXXX


Dear Ms. ********

We are in receipt of your email dated October 28, 2013, notifying us of the additional information you have received from Mr. ***** in connection with the request for repairs recently made under his vehicle service contract. We have reviewed Mr. ******** comments, but unfortunately he has not provided any new information that would change the coverage evaluation.

We understand by Mr. ******** comments that he still believes the fuel injectors should have been covered under his vehicle service contract, but again, as we mentioned in our previous response, clogging as a result of carbon build up is not a defect in materials or workmanship of the fuel injectors themselves. Nor would carbon buildup resulting in the failure of any other coverable part be considered a material defect. Mr. ***** also mentions that the manufacturer of his vehicle has created a poorly designed engine that results in carbon buildup on the fuel injectors however we would also point out that carbon is a common byproduct of all combustion engines and a normal operating condition.

We are sorry that no coverage could be applied under Mr. ******** vehicle service contract in this instance, and we regret any frustration or inconvenience that this may cause him. While we will always do whatever we can to authorize the performance of repairs that become necessary to our contract holders' vehicles, I'm afraid that we must apply that coverage in accordance with all of the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions of the contracts we administer.



Sincerely,

*** ********
****** ***** *******
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

10/26/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Refund or Exchange Complaint Issue

Complaint: I bought my first car from my local dealership and purchased an EasyCare Service Contract for $2000 for a contract period of 36 months or 36000 miles. However, I traded in the car to the same dealership 5 months later. Since it was my first car, I was not aware that I paid for that or that I have to cancel anything of that sort. Fast forward 3 years down the line, I received a notification from EasyCare to renew the service contract. I called them to let them know that I have sold the car back to that same dealsership and need a refund for the remainder of the service contract. They redirected me to the dealership where I later received a check for $177.80. From the math of the financial manager and myself, I should receive over $1700 back. From what the financial manager of the dealership is telling me, EasyCare refuses to give me back what I am due because of the timing of the cancellation. I do not agree with this because as of March, 2011, there was no extended warranty on that car that EasyCare was responsible for thus, I should not have to pay for months that I am not covered by that extended warranty.
Account_Number: *** JXXXXXX

Initial Business Response
October 22, 2013


***** *******
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB Online Complaint System


Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: ****XXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ******* ******
Issuing Dealer: ********* *****
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXX


Dear Ms. Cleaves:

Thank you for your email dated October 9, 2013, notifying us of the complaint that was filed by Ms. ******* ****** in connection with the cancellation of her vehicle service contract hereinafter "VSC", referenced above. As a preliminary matter, I would like to say that we greatly appreciate the time Ms. ****** has taken to write and share her concerns with us. As you can imagine, this presents a valuable opportunity for us to examine and correct possible deficiencies in our internal procedures, so that we may continue to ensure our customers' satisfaction with the services we provide. We have researched our records in connection with this matter and we ask that you please accept this letter in response to the concerns Ms. ****** has expressed. Your patience in awaiting our reply has been very much appreciated.

To begin, our records reflect that Ms. ****** purchased her 2006 ******** ******* from ********* ***** hereinafter ****** on October 15, 2010 with 69,583 miles showing on the vehicle's odometer. At that time, she also entered into her VSC agreement, selecting a term of 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever first occurred. Our records further indicate the cost of the service contract was $2,000.00, that Ms. ****** later requested cancellation of her vehicle service contract on or about August 17, 2013 using a vehicle odometer reading of 73,501 recorded as of March 18, 2011, and that we received and processed this request on August 23, 2013.

As stipulated in the terms and conditions of Ms. ******'s VSC, under § M entitled "Cancellation": "After 30 days, or if a claim has been authorized or paid, YOU will receive a pro rata refund based on the greater of days in force or the miles driven related to the term of this VSC, minus a $25 cancellation fee." Since cancellation of the service contract was indeed requested more than 30 days after purchase, a pro-rata cancellation refund was calculated based on the amount of time remaining. In this instance the administrative office decided to extend a courtesy "grace" period of 60 days to account for any potential extenuating circumstance such as a family illness, death or some other unfortunate or unforeseen event which may have interfered with the submission of such a request, simply as an expression of goodwill in the interest of customer service. Accordingly, instead of calculating the cancellation refund according to the precise date on which it was made, the administrative office "back-dated" the cancellation 60 days from the date it was received. This accommodation set the cancellation date at June 25, 2013, resulting in a pro-rata refund slightly greater than it would otherwise have been, and equal to 10.14% of the contract purchase price, less the flat $25 cancellation fee, for a total refund amount of $177.80. Our office issued a credit to ** for our administrative portion of Ms. ******'s pro-rata cancellation refund, and it is our understanding that ** then remitted the entire pro-rata refund amount of $177.80 as Ms. ****** notes in her complaint.

We understand from Ms. ******'s correspondence to your office that she believes she is due a cancellation refund closer to the amount which would have resulted had she requested the cancellation of her VSC on or about March 18, 2011, instead of when it was requested. Regrettably, we are without the authority and the VSC terms do not provide for such an arbitrary determination. Indeed, as Ms. ******'s complaint suggests - her objections appear to have been initiated solely by a reminder that her VSC was nearing expiration. Of course, the administrator was unaware of any change in the vehicle's ownership at the time of that inquiry - and had to proceed as it naturally would in the absence of any information, request, or documentation to the contrary. While we certainly commiserate with Ms. ******'s irritation that she may have overlooked or forgotten the cancellation provisions in her contract approximately 2 1/2 years ago, please understand that until her request for cancellation was received, all available information indicated that Ms. ****** still owned her vehicle and, depending on the vehicle's mileage at the time, the issuing provider was still prepared to assume responsibility for providing benefits according to the contractual terms by which it and Ms. ****** were bound.

Under all these circumstances, we believe the Administrative Office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Ms. ******'s VSC, in calculating (and issuing) a pro-rata refund in response to her request for cancellation of her service contract. We are sorry that the amount of the pro-rata refund was less than she hoped for, and we regret any inconvenience or frustration she may have experienced as a result. Nevertheless, I hope that I have been able to clear up any confusion regarding how the cancellation refund was calculated, and would like to reiterate that we consider ourselves to have been privileged to be Ms. ******'s VSC provider while her contract was active. If you or Ms. ****** has any other questions or concerns in connection with this matter, please do not hesitate to direct them to my attention and I will be pleased to expedite their review.


Sincerely,

**** *****
****** ***** *******
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO


Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The vehicle was my first car and I had no idea about the intricacies of VSCs. Although that was my first VSC, I had a second one from EasyCare that I was aware I purchased and thus requested the cancellation immediately I traded in the car. I believe that since the car was not covered after I traded it in, I should not have to pay for the length of time it was not covered. That is like saying I should be responsible for purchases made on my credit card that was not authorized because the card belonged to me at the time. The reality of the matter is, the cancellation stipulations are in the fine print which are 6 pages long! Even though EasyCare may have been ready to take care of any repairs on the car had I needed it, I did not have the car in the first place. My question is what am I paying for? Please refund the amount due as it should be. The first page of the VSC gives all the information about when it is validwhy do I have to dig through 6 pages of fine print to find out why it is invalid. Extended warranty companies are always looking for ways to rip people off. That is not right

Final Business Response
October 24, 2013


***** *******
Dispute Resolution Counselor
BBB of Metro Atlanta
Posted to BBB's Online Complaint System


Re: Vehicle Service Contract Number: ****XXXXXX
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ******* ******
Issuing Dealer: ********* *****
BBB Complaint Case #: XXXXXXX


Dear Ms. ********

Thank you for your email of October 23, 2013 notifying us of the rebuttal that Ms. ****** filed regarding the cancellation of her above-referenced vehicle service contract. We have reviewed Ms. ******'s additional correspondence to your office, and we ask that you please accept this letter in response to the concerns she has expressed. As we briefly mentioned in our first reply, the input that we receive from our contract holders is especially vital in our ongoing efforts to make improvements in the training of personnel and in the claims evaluation process itself, and we would like to thank Ms. ****** for again taking the time to write and share her concerns.

However, please allow us to once again express our sincere sympathy and regret that we are unable to apply provisions, preferences, or calculations that are not part of the vehicle service contract agreement which binds us. Per § M entitled: "CANCELLATION", please recall that all of the provisions to initiate and thereby effect a cancellation and its applicable refund are the responsibility of the contract holder, in this case: Ms. ******. Neither the administrator nor any other party has or had the authority to unilaterally cancel Ms. ******'s contract, except in the event of fraud or material misrepresentation on her part - which was obviously not the case here. Indeed, § M concludes with this phrase: "This VSC cannot be cancelled by US except for fraud or material misrepresentation on YOUR part or for YOUR failure to pay for this VSC." And, immediately under the heading "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" appears this explicit warning:

THIS VSC IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS, CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS, EXTENSIONS, EXCEPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS. NO PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS VSC OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS. THIS VSC IS FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF THE PURCHASER NAMED HEREIN AND APPLIES ONLY TO THE VEHICLE DESCRIBED IN THE CUSTOMER INFORMATION SECTION OF THIS VSC.

Accordingly, as Ms. ****** did not cancel the VSC by notifying the selling dealer or the administrator in writing until August 17, 2013 - we are without a way to demonstrate that she did so on March of 2011; and we are contractually prohibited from waiving the cancellation provisions the contract does contain, just as we are prohibited from injecting terms or preferred outcomes for which it does not provide. Respectfully, the service contract was not like a credit card which may have been abused in a fraudulent manner in a way that damages the legitimate card holder. In fact, such actions - fraud - are crimes which would rightly mitigate any damages that may initially seem to accrue to the card holder. But, again, Ms. ******'s service contract was not a credit card - it was a simple commercial contract, available to provide enumerated benefits for a specific period of time or miles, and subject to explicit terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions. As such it had a specific "life", if you will, during which it could provide those enumerated benefits, unless and until it was cancelled according to the procedures in § M, or expired when either the time or mileage threshold was reached.

Unhappily, the administrative office had no way to know if Ms. ****** had relinquished ownership of her vehicle prior to the receipt of her recent cancellation request. Her vehicle service contract was no different than any other cancellable product, and contained an explicit format for a pro-rata refund calculated upon the receipt of a cancellation request which was incumbent upon her to deliver. We are truly sorry that, as Ms. ****** has repeated, it appears she may not have been fully aware of what she purchased or the ramifications of failing to timely request a contract cancellation when she no longer owned the vehicle. However, until the service contract is expired, cancelled, or otherwise rendered inactive according to its terms and conditions - coverage eligibility was presumed to and did exist.

Under all these circumstances, we maintain the administrative office acted properly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Ms. ******'s vehicle service contract, in calculating (and issuing) the applicable pro-rata refund in response to her request for cancellation. Nevertheless, we are every bit as sorrowful that we are not able to comply with her demands. And, we hope Ms. ****** will understand and appreciate that while we will always do whatever we can to accommodate the wishes and requests of our valued contract holders - we are obligated to do so in accordance with all the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions of the contracts we administer.

Sincerely,

**** *****
****** ***** *******
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that despite the company's reasonable effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

Page 1 of 3

Industry Comparison| Chart

Auto Warranty Processing Service, Extended Warranty Contract Service Companies, Insurance - Auto, Insurance Companies

Additional Information

top
BBB file opened: 03/01/1991Business started: 05/01/1984
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This company is in an industry that may require licensing, bonding or registration in order to lawfully do business. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner
2 Martin Luther King Drive, S.W., 716 West Tower
Atlanta, GA30334
(404) 656-2070
http://www.inscomm.state.ga.us

Type of Entity

Corporation

Incorporated: March 1989, GA

Contact Information
Principal: Mr. John Blank (Claims Department)Mr. John McElrone (Alternate Dispute Rep.)
Number of Employees

275

Business Category

Auto Warranty Processing Service, Extended Warranty Contract Service Companies, Insurance - Auto, Insurance Companies

Products & Services

This company provides Auto Warranty Processing for different automobile manufactures

Hours of Operation
Mon: 08:30 AM to 06:30 PMTue: 08:30 AM to 06:30 PMWed: 08:30 AM to 06:30 PMThu: 08:30 AM to 06:30 PMFri: 08:30 AM to 06:30 PMSat: 08:30 AM to 12:30 PM
Alternate Business Names
Easy Care Gap Vehicle Protection Program, Primus Care Vehicle Service Contracts, APCO, Manheim Easy Care, Honda Easy Care, Primus Care, Aegis, The Aegis Group, Inc., EasyCare Gap, EasyCare Gap Protection, The Aegis Service Contact Liability Risk Purchase, EasyCare Gold, EasyCare Warranty, APCO/EasyCare, Warranty Support Services, LLC
Industry Tips
Automobile Insurance
Fraudulent Health Insurance a Growing Problem
Home Warranties
Know the Facts about Auto Service Contracts
The Hail Season is Here
Travel Insurance - Is it Necessary?
Will Your Auto Insurance Weather the Storm?

Map & Directions

Map & Directions

Address for EasyCare

6010 Atlantic Blvd

Norcross, GA 30071-1303

To | From

Find a LocationX
Or, display all locations
Industry Comparison ChartX

The information in the table below represents an industry comparison of businesses which are of the same relative size. This is based on BBB's database of businesses located in Metro Atlanta, Athens and NE Georgia. Businesses may engage in more than one type of business. The percent of time the business engages in a type of business is not accounted for. There is no known industry standard for the number of complaints a business can expect. The volume of business and number of transactions may have a bearing on the number of complaints received by BBB.

*EasyCare is in this range.

X

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.

X

Additional Phone Numbers

  • (880) 458-7071 ext ext223
  • (800) 521-2774
  • (888) 327-9400
  • (800) 538-4181
  • (800) 458-7070
  • (800) 661-3279
  • (877) 730-5314
  • (800) 458-7071
  • (770) 394-7070
X

BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the company within two business days. The company will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the company's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.

X

BBB began including complaint response text in BBB Business Reviews on July 1, 2013.

BBB reports the complaint response text for all reportable complaints against a business that are received electronically.

X

What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.

X

What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known significant government actions involving business' marketplace conduct.

X

About BBB Business Review Content and Services

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content and services in BBB Business Reviews. The additional content and services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release. Not all enhanced content and services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.

X

Thank you for your feedback.

Help us improve by taking our survey.

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.

X

What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.

X

BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.