Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since


Phone: (530) 243-1310 Fax: (530) 243-4119 6851 Eastside Rd., Redding, CA 96001

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Coachmaster 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 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Coachmaster include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 2 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

2 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 2
Total Closed Complaints 2

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Coachmaster
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: April 01, 1993 Business started: 01/01/1969 in CA Business started locally: 01/01/1969 Business incorporated 01/23/1987 in CA
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

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

These agencies may include:

CA Bureau of Auto Repair- BAR
10949 North Mather Blvd, Rancho Cordova CA 95670
Phone Number: (800) 952-5210
The number is 132773.

Type of Entity


Business Management
Mr. Don Stec, President
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Don Stec, President
Business Category

Auto Body Repair & Painting

Products & Services

Coachmaster specializes in repair of the modern car and pick up truck.

Additional Locations


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.

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.

Complaint Detail(s)

7/15/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: My vehicle was taken to COACHMASTERS 2 days after it was rearended by another driver. My vehicle was in the shop for over a month being repaired. COACHMASTER consistently failed to communicate with me throughout the process and when I called was informed that multiple parts had been overlooked and ordered at a later date to complete my vehicles repairs. Upon picking up my car over a month later, there where still parts missing and I was requested to return the car to COACHMASTERS to complete the repairs. Prior to returning my vehicle I noticed my rear hatch did not shut correctly and there was paint missing in a location where bare metal was exposed. I also noticed a small rubber flap missing on the drivers side of my vehicle that should of been located directly in front of the rear wheel. The passenger side rubber flap was in place and intact. I advised COAHCMASTERS of all the issues, at which time they stated they would correct the issues except for the rubber flap. "****" believed that the flap was missing from the factory, and believed there was no possible way that the flap would of f***** off at the time of the collision. Never the less he ordered the part to prove me wrong. When the part came in, we found that the flap was only held on by two compression clips. These clips where easily slid on and off the vehicle. The owner of COACHMASTERS and "****" both stated that they believed I was lying about the vehicle having a rubber flap prior to the collision and threatened me with reporting me to the DA for insurance fraud. The owner of COACHMASTERS and "****" stated that they would only put the part on if Farmers insurance paid for it or if I paid for it. I would of bought the part myself it was my fault, but COACHMASTERS was paid over $6000 to complete this job and still was unable to do it correctly, complete, or in a timely fashion. I would not recommend anyone to take their vehicle to COACHMASTERS to be repaired. If you ask any questions, they will call you a liar.

Desired Settlement: I request that the part be purchased by COACHMASTERS, and that it be installed by a third independent party selected by me or the BBB. I do not want the part installed by COACHMASTERS due to my lack of trust in their integrity.

Business Response:

04/07/14  9:00am          Vehicle Towed In
04/10/14 3:30pm           ***** authorized repairs per Farmers Estimate & was informed that there would e a supplement for additional parts and labor as the Farmers Estimate was not complete and it is common for additional damage to be discovered as repairs progress.  Parts ordered per Farmers Estimate. ***** advised repairs would take 3 to 4 weeks depending on parts arrival.
5/01/14                        Additional parts ordered.
5/06/14  9:45am           Reanna (*****'s wife) was informed of parts delay and that Coachmaster would attempt to have repairs complete by 5/09/14.
5/08/14                       Additional ordered parts came in wrong, reordered.
5/09/14                       Repairs complete, vehicle picked up by *****
                                  ***** was informed  at the time of pickup that the hatch handle, bumper brackets & backup lamp were on backorder. Coachmaster would call when parts arrive.
5/19/14                       Vehicle dropped off by ***** to have above items installed and also requested that the hatch be adjusted and to spot paint a chip at Lt side upper inside hatch on body. He also reported that the Lt Rear Deflector was missing. Repairs were completed the same day with the exception of the deflector.
6/02/14                      ***** came to Coachmaster to discuss the missing deflector. ***** explained that the original photos show that the deflector was not there when  vehicle was towed in and that there was no evidence that the deflector had ever been there, i.e. attaching clips. The deflector is attached by clips that will damage the paint when an installed deflector is removed. ***** demonstrated how the clips work to *****. ***** insisted that the part was either there or knocked off during the collision and that Coachmaster should pay for the part and installation. Coachmaster had ordered the part and was going to install at no charge but ***** or the insurance                         company would have to pay for the part and the freight. ***** left angry, saying it was Coachmaster's responsibility and that he would not pay for the part, stating that Coachmaster was paid over $6000 for the repairs and should buy the part for him.
6/03/14 1:15pm           ***** contacted the insurance adjuster regarding the deflector. The adjuster said insurance would pay for it and to send a supplement when installed.
6/03/14  1:25pm          ***** called ***** to inform him of the above. ***** said to send the part back, he will replace it himself. 
In Conclusion Coachmaster never said ***** was a liar. Coachmaster said there was no evidence the deflector was ever on the vehicle. To bill an insurance company for parts that were not on the vehicle before the collision would be insurance fraud. This raises the question of "IF there is no evidence the part was on the vehicle and photos from the insurance company show that the part was not on the vehicle, why would ***** think Coachmaster should pay for the part?"

Consumer Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

I have no issues with the amount of time or money spent to fix my vehicle. I wanted the job done right and with  quality products. This was the reputation that COACHMASTERS had. But after my experience I will not suggest to anyone that I come in contact with, to use COACHMASTERS, and these are the reasons.

After I presented ***** of COACHMASTERS with a problem, he pulled an answer out of thin air, thinking that I would just believe it and stated that my vehicle would only come with one rock guard. This being said, he still checked with the  local Mazda dealer and found that my vehicle in fact came with two rock guards from the factory.

Prior to ordering the rock guard, ***** did not check with my insurance to make sure that they would cover the cost of the part. Instead, once the part came in, he required that I pay for the part or wait till he authorized the purchase through the insurance adjuster. This was after already waiting over two weeks for the rock deflector to come in.

***** believed that the part was not on my vehicle prior to arriving at COACHMASTERS. This fact may be true and I never denied this. Due to the opposing rock guard being out of place when I initially noticed the part missing, it is perceivable to believe that due to the force of the other vehicle rear-ending my vehicle, it could cause the rock guard to detach from the body of my vehicle.

***** believed that showing me how the clips that he had in stock, scratched a small piece of metal, could compare to my vehicles clips which where designed differently and attached to an area on my vehicle where there was rubberized undercoating.

Lastly, I confronted the owner *** **** about the conflict over who would be paying for the rock guard, to which he told me he believed I was a liar, and that he would report me to the District Attorney for insurance fraud. *** **** also stated that he believed I was an unreasonable person, and that he could not deal with unreasonable people.

All in all, I believe that COACHMASTERS should of communicated with my insurance company and figured out who would be paying for the part, prior to calling me and having me arrive to see the part, just to tell me that I can't have it until its paid for. This is understandable that COACHMASTERS would want the part paid for by someone else, but it was not my job or responsibility to communicate with the insurance company on additional parts ordered. I believed that COACHMASTERS was paid to complete a job and failed to do so by lack of customer service, and slandering me while I was discussing the issue inside their office. There is not financial restitution that I require from COACHMASTERS. I communicated with my insurance, and ordered the part on my own, and had it paid for by my insurance company. This was a simple issue that should of been handled completely in house and without causing me to have to take action. Additionally I did not appreciate being called a LIAR and being threatened with getting reported to the DA. I wanted to report this issue to the BBB to allow other potential customers to hear the way that I was treated during this business transaction and hopefully prevent COACHMASTERS from continuing to treat customers in this manner. Lastly, I would like a written apology to myself and my wife from both *** **** and ***** at COACHMASTERS, and to have these apologies attached to my complaint for other potential customers to view.  


Business Response:

BBB Complaint #********


Response to this complaint will be addressed paragraph by paragraph since it is not written in the order the events actually took place.

Paragraph 1:   Rejection of response.  No comment.

P-2:      No response necessary.  ***** acknowledges our reputation.

P-3:      ***** first accused Coachmaster of removing the rock guard and failing to put it back on when he came in to have the back ordered items installed.  This was approximately two weeks after he took possession of the vehicle.  ***** checked with the technician and was advised a rock guard was not removed.  Further, there wasn’t any wear as is typical when a part is attached to cover and protect a painted surface.  This caused ***** to speculate that there may have never been a rock guard in place.  A check with the Mazda dealer did confirm the vehicle should have a rock guard on both sides but this does not confirm the guard was there before the collision.  If it was not there, it was not related to the collision repair by insurance legal standards.  It needs to be understood that at this point, Coachmaster was defending itself against a false accusation.

***** insisted it was Coachmasters’ responsibility to replace the rock guard.  He was positive it was in place before the vehicle came to Coachmaster and therefore should have been on the estimate.

P-4:      ***** did order the rock guard before contacting the insurance company to advise them of a possible supplement.  He discussed that ***** was positive that the rock guard was in place before the collision.  When the insurance company checked their photos, the photos showed the rock guard was missing upon the arrival of the vehicle at Coachmaster.   With this evidence, ***** expected ***** to react reasonably and say that he must have been mistaken and that he would pay for the rock guard himself.  But instead, ***** stated the rock guard must have been knocked off in the collision.  ***** advised ***** he would contact the insurance company on his behalf.  Leanne of Farmers Insurance was contacted and agreed to replace the rock guard.  On June 13, 2014, ***** telephoned ***** to tell him that the insurance would purchase the part.  ***** replied, “Send it back, I will replace it myself.”          


P-5:      ***** accused Coachmaster of removing the rock guard in a loud and argumentative manner.  It was only after ***** told him the rock guard was not there in the insurance photos that he said he might have been wrong but never-the-less for a $6000.00 repair Coachmaster should have replaced it anyway. ***** never mentioned to ***** that the opposing rock guard had been knocked out of place.

P-6:      ***** demonstrated to ***** by using a test metal panel and a similar clip to show how the rock guard clips would damage the underside of the vehicle if it had been removed.  Undercoating would actually show an imprint of the clips and the mounting area would not have been coated with road debris.  If the rock guard was there recently this area would have been cleaner, instead, it resembled the bottom of the vehicle body, covered in road debris.   ***** then began to complain that Coachmaster had not done a complete repair.  He stated that it was Coachmasters’ responsibility to purchase and install the rock guard whether it was there or not because Coachmaster did not have it on the estimate.

P-7:      ***** is correct when he said, “he confronted the owner, *** ****”.  After ***** stepped out of the office, ***** asked of ****:  Is this the way you run your business?  ***** and ***** had been talking for at least 15 to 20 minutes. ***** was loud and argumentative and challenged ***** on everything that was said.  ***** moved closer to ****’s desk and wanted to argue.  **** told ***** that he had heard everything that had been said between him and ***** and talking to ***** any further would not result in a different opinion.  **** added that Coachmaster cannot charge the insurance company for a part if there is no physical evidence the part was on the vehicle prior to the collision that would be insurance fraud.  Apparently ***** considers this calling him a liar, the word was not used. It was simply stating a fact of law.  ***** treated ***** with much restraint and was never rude as ***** interrogated him and challenged him loudly.

***** would be best described as a bully who manipulates what is said to best fit his own needs and desired outcome.  **** did say that he did not want to talk to him any further because ***** would not be reasonable and wanted to argue loudly.  It was very disruptive in the office/customer area.

P-8:      ***** had contacted the insurance company.  Coachmasters’ concern is not to be accused of insurance fraud.  Another example of ***** manipulating words is the way he calls stating facts slander.  It is not slander to disagree.  Coachmaster does not add parts to a repair without insurance approval, it is the law and the District Attorney is strong on fighting insurance fraud.  Mentioning the DA’s position on insurance fraud was not a threat but an explanation of why Coachmaster does not arbitrarily add parts to an estimate that do not appear to be claim related.  ***** refused to understand this.

 In conclusion, ***** and I are sorry this incident happened.  Coachmaster has been in business for 46 years and has built and maintained an excellent reputation in both workmanship and honesty.  It is better to lose an occasional unreasonable customer than to sacrifice our reputation or lower our ethical standards. 


Consumer Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

Debating with COACHMASTERS is proving to be pointless. We will go back and forth with he said this, he said that. It all comes down to who has the burden of proof. Though I may be only one "unreasonable customer", my opinion is held highly by may of my friends, family, and co-workers. If COACHMASTERS would of completed their job completely and as it should of been done, there would of been no complaints from me. But instead COACHMASTERS not only failed to provide me satisfactory service, but caused me to feel the need to report their conduct to the BBB. I have nothing to gain from this debate, I have my car... my rock guard... my honesty... and I will be able to move on from this knowing that me, my family, friends and co-workers will not go to COACHMASTERS for future auto body repair. Seeing *** **** reply to my complaints in the manner that he did was sad, and it shows how much he has to lose. I would never of come to the BBB if I did not have a valid complaint. I hope that the BBB will review the statements from both sides, and make a determination on what they feel the correct resolution for this complaint will be. I would like to request that COACHMASTERS rating be downgraded from a A+ rating. I can vouch that I received no where near that level of service.

8/15/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Work was not completed to statisfaction, further damage done to trailer while there. Fueling station door does not stay closed, wire mesh panel was not straightened, while at shop awning was torn and shop informed me that they will not be taking responsibility for it. Damage was done on their lot.

Desired Settlement: refund of monies paid to them for services, so that another shop can complete the work properly, as well as payment to have the awning replaced.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
It is unfortunate when there is a disagreement about repairs with any vehicle owner. We try to avoid any misunderstanding before hand by writing a detailed estimate. An estimate is written following the directions of the owner or person bringing the vehicle in for the estimate. We go over each line on the estimate with the person so they may be sure each item they pointed out as damaged is on the estimate. The mistake here was that the trailer owner sent her companion to get an estimate and he did not describe the extent of the damage the owner visualized. It is the owner's responsibility to read the estimate before repairs are started. Evidently the owner failed to look over the estimate. Additional damage was only pointed out when the owner came to pick up the trailer. This additional damage was not charged for. The owner was advised that the missed damage could be added as a supplement to the insurance company. The fuel door worked properly when the owner inspected it while at the shop. We will re-adjust it if necessary. The openness of our parking area and our policy requiring several obsevers when moving a trailer would make it virtually impossible that the awning was damaged here. It should also be noted that the shop manager was threatned with physical violence in the presence of his family and in the presence of a restaurant full of people by the male companion of the owner of the trailer. The owner also slandered the shop in a full restaurant going table to table. The police had to be called by the restaurant manager, the trailer owner and her companion were ordered to leave. In conclusion, we are sorry this happened but threats of violance, loud profanity, slander and stopping payment on the owners check for the insurance deductible is not the way to resolve a misunderstanding. The shop is open to persuing the supplement items with the insurance company and adjusting the fuel door if it is not working to the owners satisfaction and of course, the deductible would have to be paid.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I will mail the owner the check for the deductible. I will also pay out of my own pocket for repairs to be completed properly. In my opinion this is fraud. I will be bringing the trailer in for the rest of the repairs to be completed and I will not leave the trailer during the entire time it is on their premises which means I will have to take time off work to do this. I apoligize profusly for the violent threats and will apoligize personally to the owner upon my arrival.