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

C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc

Additional Locations

Phone: (888) 335-6838 Fax: (724) 387-2344 View Additional Phone Numbers 4431 William Penn Hwy Ste 1, Murrysville, PA 15668 http://www.carsprotectionplus.com/


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

Description

The company offers a limited used auto warranty promoted by dealers as a customer expense add-on to a used vehicle sale. The warranty is for an agreed upon length of time, mileage and covered components. The warranty becomes effective when accepted by the company.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc 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 affect the rating for C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 167 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

167 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 56 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 2
Billing/Collection Issues 1
Delivery Issues 2
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 85
Problems with Product/Service 77
Total Closed Complaints 167

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

23 Customer Reviews on C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 3
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 20
Total Customer Reviews 23

Additional Information

BBB file opened: April 01, 1999 Business started: 07/31/1998 in PA Business incorporated 07/31/1998 in PA
Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Michael Tedesco, President Jason P McConnell, General Counsel
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Jason P McConnell, General Counsel
Principal: Mr. Michael Tedesco, President
Business Category

AUTO WARRANTY PROCESSING SERVICE

Alternate Business Names
CARS Complete Automotive Repair Services Protection Plus Inc/CARS
Industry Tips
Auto Service Contracts

Additional Locations

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    19230 W 8 Mile Rd

    Southfield, MI 48075

  • 4431 William Penn Hwy Ste 1

    Murrysville, PA 15668 (724) 387-2327 (888) 335-6838

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.

Complaint Detail(s)

9/26/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Cars Protection Plus service contract was offered with the purchase of a used vehicle. This was followed up by an offer from Cars Protection Plus for coverage on additional components which was purchased. The covered vehicle was brought to a repair facility on Friday 8/12/2016 due to an alternator failure. This is listed as a covered component under the service contract. The warranty company was not available for authorization that day due to down phone systems. The vehicle remained at the repair shop until Monday morning. The repair facility contacted the warranty company for authorization. The total itemized bill came to 315.99. Parts 249.99, labor 66.00. The warranty company offered to pay $25.71. We have a $100.00 deductible. CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt or aftermarket components. This is not a requirement per the contract, only an option. They based their reimbursement on the cheaper way out. This would also require the repair shop to order this part, that I'm certain they will not guarantee including the work. We were already without a driveable vehicle for 4 days. I needed the vehicle so I just paid for it.

Desired Settlement: I would like to be reimbursed $149.99 of the $249.99 for the part. This is less the $100.00 deductible. Furthermore, I would like to be reimbursed $60.00 of $66.00 for the labor for a total of $209.99. The $25.71offered was a complete waste of my 4 days trying to do the right thing.

Business Response:

PROTECTION PLUS

August 17, 2016

VIA:    SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE

******** ****

BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220

RE:      Complaint No. ********

2002 FORD RANGER VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On June 18, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 5, 2016. On July 21, 2016, the customer upgraded his Service Contract to a Value Limited Service Contract (see attached Service Contract).

On August 15, 2016 at 9:31 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing alternator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On August 15, 2016 at 10:52 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle shut down while being driven. The repair facility advised that they had run a charging system test which determined that the alternator failed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On August 15, 2016 at 11:01, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer’s vehicle as follows: We could supply the alternator for $89.71. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .6 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $36.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $25.71, and we could supply the part as stated above, or pay $89.71 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer's decision.

The customer states in his consumer complaint that CARS was unavailable to authorize a claim on August 12, 2016. The customer is correct. CARS was unavailable to open or authorize a claim on August 12, 2016 due to a catastrophic phone system failure. CARS apologizes for this inconvenience.

CARS has, again, reviewed this claim. CARS called the local NAPA store in the area of the customer’s repair and were advised that an alternator could be purchased for $199.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .6 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $36.00.

In a goodwill gesture, due to the inconvenience caused to the customer, CARS is willing to reimburse the customer as follows: We can authorize $199.00 for the alternator. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .6 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $36.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. Therefore, CARS is willing to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $188.71.

Upon receipt of a proper invoice, CARS will issue the customer a check in the amount of $188.71.

By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract and his upgrade to a Value Limited Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle.

CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through October 5, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Value Limited Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel


Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********* and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

***** ******

9/9/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The adjuster Rod ext 272 gave me a 30 quote on what they would pay for A/C repairs on my 2002 Escalade of $559.93,( that was the price after the $100.00 deductible) But only paid $388.94 leaving a balance of $170.99 still owed me. I called and attempted to reach him no less than 15 times but No answer. Then I emailed him, NO response, Then I called and ask for his supervisor Scott ext ***. He said they would pay No more than the 388.94 even though Rod quoted of $559.93. So I ask to talk to his supervisor Bernie, got his voice mail, but Bernie has not responded either. I paid $1800.00 upfront for their protection plan, All I want is for them to pay what the contract says and what They said they would pay. I want my $170.99 reimbursement.

Desired Settlement: I want them to Honor their contract and quote on auto repairs.

Business Response:

August 18, 2016

VIA:    SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE

******** ****

BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220

RE:      Complaint No. ********

2002 CADILLAC ESCALADE VIN (Last 8)* ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 16, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 17, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 17, 2016.

First Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 9:57 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner line issues and needed to be recharged. We advised that the air conditioner line is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed.

Second Claim: On July 27, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor, drier, and condenser issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On July 27, 2016 at 4:12 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $292.00 and the condenser for $70.99. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $48.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.8 hours to complete, and repair facility's hourly rate was $65.00. Therefore, total labor was $247.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $556.99, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $147.00 towards labor, or pay $556.99 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer’s decision.

On July 28, 2016 at 10:38 a.m., CARS reviewed the options we could offer for the repair of his vehicle with the customer. The customer advised us that he may take his vehicle to another repair facility for the repairs. CARS then advised the customer that if he did remove his vehicle from the repair facility a new claim would have to be opened on behalf of his vehicle.

On July 28, 2016 at 4:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed his vehicle without any repairs being performed on his vehicle. The claim was then closed.

Third Claim: On August 9, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a second repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing air conditioner compressor issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On August 10, 2016 at 1:17 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $253.51 and the drier for $35.86. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $45.57. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.2 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $154.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $388.94, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $54.00 towards labor, or pay $388.94 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to us with the customer's decision.

On August 10, 2016 at 2:08 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle. On that same day, on August 10, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle.

On August 10, 2016, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, upon receipt of a proper invoice, CARS paid the repair facility $388.94 towards the repair of the air conditioner via credit card.

On August 15, 2016 at 2:04 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they performed the authorized repairs; however, the customer’s vehicle had no air conditioning in the rear of his vehicle. The repair facility further advised that the rear air expansion valve had failed. CARS advised that the rear expansion valve is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract.

On August 16, 2016 at 9:54 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like to be paid the rest of the thirty (30) day quote that CARS provided during the processing of the July 27, 2016 claim to another repair facility. The customer stated that we originally quoted him $600.00; however, we only paid $388.94. CARS advised that we paid the amount we authorized to the current repair facility for the parts and labor (see attached invoice). CARS advised that the failure of the expansion valve and any damage caused by that failure were not covered under his Service Contract. We further advised that we do not give thirty (30) day quotes.

On August 16, 2016 at 11:24 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the current and previous claims with the customer.

By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to take the cash allowance towards the repair of his choice.

It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, on August 15, 2016 the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear expansion valve issues. These components are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS cannot assist with the repair/replacement of the expansion valve.

The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(a): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: ...The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." Here, the July 27, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle by the first repair facility was closed on July 28, 2016 when the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility. During a telephone call with the customer on July 28, 2016, CARS advised the customer that if he removed his vehicle from the repair facility, a new claim would need to be opened on behalf of his vehicle whenever he took his vehicle to a repair facility for repairs.

CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract and what is necessary for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, CARS authorized the claim based on the information provided by the repair facility and paid the claim as per the authorized parts listed on the invoice. During the processing of the August 9, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS authorized an a/c compressor for $253.51, a drier for $35.86, and fluids for $45.57 and 2.2 hours for labor, less the deductible, based on the information provided by the repair facility that the customer chose to repair his vehicle for a total of $388.94. CARS cannot apply monies from an authorization for a closed claim towards the open claim. Therefore, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist any further with the August 9, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer.

CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through February 18, 2020. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

9/1/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Complaint Details Unavailable
8/30/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a used vehicle in March 2016 and purchased an extended warranty with this company. In June, my car began to misfire. I paid for two repairs (fuel system clean and new spark plugs) before it was recommended that I receive a new engine due to at least two cylinders going bad and oil leaking in my spark plugs. The Buick Dealership recommended that I replace the entire engine due to if one part has failed, it has cause significant damage to the other parts of my engine. They stated that replacing one part was not recommended. I also had a second business confirm this recommendation. When I tried to use my extended warranty, I was told that I was have to pay have my engine taken apart prior to them deciding if they would cover the cost of the one part that was damage. The repair shop and second repair shop reported that they would not advise this was due to damage that may have been cause to other parts. I literally called 8 to 10 places to price the cost of having my engine taken apart. Half of the companies did not want to work with Cars Protection Inc due to the reputations and stipulations. Other places did not want to take apart my engine due to cost and refuse to tear it down. Buick was the only one to quote me a tear down price, which was $1500. They still didn't recommend that I just replace one part and Cars Protections could not guarantee that they would cover the repair after tear down. After I paid to hav my engine replaced out of pocket, I was also needed additional work completed on my exhaust, that Cars Inc also would not cover. I am simply requesting a refund due to replacing 80% of my parts that are covered by the Cars Protection Inc extended warranty out of my pocket and having paid over $4000. I purchased the plan with the intention of having not to stress over car repairs, and they have not assisted me at all.

Desired Settlement: A complete or partial financial refund

Business Response:

Dear Ms. *****

Attached please find CARS' response.  Thank you.

COMPLAINT ID #********
2010 BUICK LACROSSE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. *****
1 am in receipt of your letter dated August 3, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On March 25, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer’s Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on March 28, 2016 (the attached Service Contract).
On July 5, 2016 at 4:49 p.m., a mechanical claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle advising that the vehicle was experiencing engine issues. At 5:08 p.m., we then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility advising the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down the vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS also advised the repair facility that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility to get back to us with the cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle.
On July 6, 2016 at 11:04 a.m., CARS claims adjuster spoke with the customer and went over the claim procedures in detail with her. The customer stated that she might move the vehicle to another repair facility. We advised the customer to have any new repair facility call CARS to open a new claim.
This was the last communication between CARS and the customer and any repair facility regarding the engine claim.
On August 1, 2016 at 3:39 p.m., the customer called our customer service department inquiring about a refund. We advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, she was not entitled to a refund.
On that same date at 3:43 p.m., the customer called stating that the teardown requirements were unreasonable and that she should receive a refund. We again explained to the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, she was not eligible for a refund.
Again on August 2, 2016 at 4:34 p.m., a CARS' Manager returned a telephone call to the customer and explained to her that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, she was not entitled to a refund.
By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. This is the claim procedure that must be followed by all CARS customers for all mechanical claims.
CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it was necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage in order for CARS to move forward with the engine claim.
The customer states in her complaint that she had the repairs performed on the vehicle without having the repairs authorized by CARS and is now requesting a refund. Under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract it states at Paragraphs 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS." Also at Paragraph 3(e): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs have begun."
Furthermore, the customer states in her complaint that she is requesting a refund of $1,295.00; however, the customer’s Service Contract states that the customer paid $1,278.00 for the Service Contract. This is not the amount that CARS received for the cost of the customer’s Service Contract. Dealers have the right to mark up the cost of service contracts. The selling dealer that sold the customer the Service Contract did mark up and make a profit on the cost of the same.
Additionally, at Paragraph 5(b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated."
CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when she purchased the above-referenced vehicle in Tennessee stating that she had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in Tennessee to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. Therefore, pursuant to her Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund. 
The customer has Service Contract coverage through March 28, 2018. If the customer experiences mechanical issues in the future, she must follow all the claim procedures which may include teardown and diagnostics to determine if the component failure is covered under her Value Plus Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I feel as though Cars Protection Inc's is misleading and doesn't account for unusual circumstances.  I purchased the plan for a peace of mind when puchasing a used vehicle.  I would not recommend anyone purchase their plans.  I purchased one of their value plus plans.  When my engine in my car went out 3 months after I purchased the plan, the wanted me to pay fee to have my engine torn down.  This is written in the contract that I signed but I do not feel as though it is fair for me to pay over $1500 to have my engine taken apart without them being able to guarantee me that they would cover the cost of the repair once the cause of engine failure  was determine.  They want me to pay to have my engine taken apart without being able to promise that they would cover the repair even after two place told me that I needed a new engine.  The customer service reps and supervisors were rude and all they kept saying was you signed the contract. No customer service skills and we're unwilling to refund any of my plan.  I would recommend keeping the money you pay for this extended warranty and doing paying for your own repairs.
Regards,

******** ******

8/25/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: So I bought my car, a 2007 mercedes benz e350, from ** motors in April 2014 at ** Motor which the guy who sold me the car advise me to purchase a warranty that fully covers me. So I agreed and purchased the warranty, So I never used the warranty because the company refused to explain what it covers in terms that I can understand fast forward to March 2016 where problems with this car begin. I had my car towed to a mechanic at ******** motors and gave him a copy of the contract to explain what it covers. So he put the claim in with the company which was approved but little did I know that the parts this warranty like to use are used parts. That is something I wish I known from the beginning before purchasing. So they kept sending my mechanic bad transmissions to put in my car that he had to keep sending back. I already been with out my car for three months not to mention all the rentals I paid for which they only reimburse me for $25. So then my mechanic call me and tell me they only PAID him $640 So I called to find out exactly how much was paid out because its my car and i am the one who bought the warranty. the guy that is handling my claim was acting all secretive so i asked how much was paid and he said $1640 was authorized but they have yet to pay the mechanic. so i asked for some type of proof or statement of what will be paid out and I did not get a professional response.

Desired Settlement: I want up to $300 rental reimbursement like my contract stated since the first 3 transmissions was not in good standing to replace in my car and i want a copy or notification of exactly what will be or has been paid to the mechanic that has my car or the full refund of what i paid for this faulty warranty

Business Response: VIA: SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE
******** ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2007 MERCEDES E350 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 29, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On April 18, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on April 22, 2014.
On March 24, 2016 at 11:50 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the check engine light was displayed in her vehicle. The customer further advised that her vehicle would not accelerate. CARS then reviewed our claims procedures, rental benefits and coverage under her Service Contract.
First Claim: On March 24, 2016 at 1:23 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility, advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission control module issues. CARS advised the repair facility that this was a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed.
Second Claim: On April 21, 2016 at 3:58 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that her vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On April 21, 2016 at 4:14 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on April 20, 2016. The repair facility further advised that the transmission was not shifting and the check engine light was displayed. The repair facility advised that they could not clear the displayed codes. CARS questioned if it was an electronic issue and the repair facility advised that it was a torque converter or something in the transmission.
On April 25, 2016 at 10:42 a.m., CARS reviewed the customer’s rental benefits with her.
On April 29, 2016 at 12:59 p.m. the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of the April 21, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. CARS left a voice message for the customer advising that we were still waiting for the repair facility to get back to us with a cause of failure for her vehicle.
On May 13, 2016 at 2:43 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of the April 21, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. CARS reviewed the claim with the customer.
On May 26, 2016 at 1:56 p.m., thirty-five days after the claim was opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that they removed the transmission pan and found ground metal in the pan. The repair facility advised CARS that they would not know what the cause of failure was until the transmission was removed and torn down. We again advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear-down her vehicle to the point of component failure and contact CARS with their findings. We advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, she was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges.
On June 2, 2016 at 2:55 p.m., CARS left a voice message for the customer advising her that that we were still waiting for the repair facility to get back to us with a cause of failure for her vehicle.
On June 3, 2016 at 3:52 p.m., forty-three days after the claim was opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, the repair facility advised that the piston failed causing the transmission to lose pressure and the clutches to burn. The repair facility advised that they would fax an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle.
On June 7, 2016 at 2:03 p.m., after reviewing the repair facility's estimate, CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1150.00. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $110.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 8.0 hours, including the time to change the valve body, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $480.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,640.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $380.00 towards labor or pay $1,640.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that they would supply the transmission; therefore, CARS would pay $1,640.00 toward the repair of the customer’s vehicle. On June 7, 2016 at 3:20 p.m., CARS provided an authorization number to begin the repair of the customer's vehicle
On June 22, 2016 at 11:13 a.m., CARS advised the customer to contact the repair facility regarding the status of her claim. CARS advised that we had supplied the repair facility with an authorization number and instructions on payment. CARS further advised that we have not received a final invoice for payment from the repair facility.
On July 19, 2016 at 1:41 p.m., forty-two days after CARS gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin to repair the customer’s vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that they were having issues with their supplied transmission. The repair facility advised CARS that they had replaced three (3) transmissions in the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised that the pump had failed on the third transmission. The repair facility advised that they replaced the pump but a code for solenoid #2 displayed. The repair facility advised that they then replaced the solenoid #3 and the same code displayed. The repair facility then replaced all the solenoids and the valve body and continued to get the same code. The repair facility further advised that the vehicle’s computer was the problem. CARS computer is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract. CARS further advised that we covered lubricated parts contained within the transmission.
By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, the customer’s Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we used the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and was used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the repair facility advised us to pay the cash allowance to them.
Your Service Contract states under Covered Components: "Rental Benefits The Service
Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." CARS authorized 8.0 hours of labor time for the April 21, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. N Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on July 5, 2016, the customer was paid for $25.00 via check no. 234688. CARS cannot assist with any additional vehicle rental costs since Mitchell OnDemand labor guide states the repair should take 8.0 hours.
CARS would like to point out here that CARS had not supplied any transmissions for the repair of the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised CARS that they would take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of the customer's choice; therefore all three (3) transmissions have been supplied by the repair facility.
The customer’s Service Contract states at 3 (g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: If it is determined that a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S., an authorization number will be issued for the repair. The authorization number is valid for 180 days from the dated issued. After 180 days the authorization number and claim are void. No invoices will be processed without a valid authorization number, your signature, repair facility's warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information."
Here, the customer states in her letter that CARS has paid $640.00 towards the cost of the transmission. As stated above CARS has authorized $1,640.00 for the repair facilities replacement transmission and labor. As of today's date, July 29, 2016, CARS has not paid any monies to the repair facility. On June 22, 2016, CARS went over our instructions for payment with the repair facility. CARS has not received an invoice from the repair facility for payment. Upon receipt of a properly submitted invoice, CARS will pay the authorized amount to the repair facility.
CARS’ service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform you what is specifically covered and your financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. 
The customer's Service Contract expired on April 21, 2016. The customer no longer has Service Contract coverage under any of CARS' service contract. No new claim may be opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
For all the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to provide any further assistance with the April 21, 2016 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. CARS is willing to pay the authorized amount to the repair facility for the repair of the customer's vehicle upon submission of a properly submitted invoice pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
 

JPM/jmm
Enclosure 


8/25/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: i purchased a warranty. i had a suspension issue which is supposed to be coverd but since its connected to another part its not coverd. all car parts are connected to the other

Desired Settlement: to pay for the repairs the warranty states it covers

Business Response: August 1, 2016
VIA: SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE
Patricia ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2006 MERCEDES CLK350 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 25, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On August 18, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 25, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").
First Claim: On July 6, 2016 at 11:12 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing thrust arm, sway bar link and lower control arm issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On July 6, 2016 at 11:21 a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that the thrust arm bushing, ball joints that attach to the thrust arms, both lower arm bushings and sway bars links had failed. CARS advised the repair facility to fax CARS an estimate with part numbers and we would call him back after the estimate was reviewed.
On July 11, 2016 at 8:45 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer removed the vehicle without any repairs being performed. Since the vehicle was removed, the claim was closed.
Second Claim: On July 13, 2016 at 1:32 p.m., a new repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing thrust arm/bushing, sway bar link and lower control arm issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On July 13, 2016 at 1:55 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was a noise under the vehicle. The repair facility advised that the front thrust arms have excessive play from the ball joints. The repair facility further advised that the front lower control arm bushings and the front sway bar had failed. CARS then went over our claim procedures.
On July 14, 2016 at 11:41 a.m., CARS reviewed with the repair facility the customer’s options of having the parts shipped to the repair facility or taking cash allowance towards the repair of their choice. CARS then requested that the repair facility fax CARS an estimate with part numbers and we would call him back after the estimate was reviewed.
On July 18, 2016 at 8:42 a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to get the status of the customer’s claim. The repair facility advised that they would telephone CARS with the part numbers and that the vehicle was still at the repair facility.
On July 20, 2016 at 2:03 p.m., CARS left a voice message for the customer to telephone CARS.
On July 21, 2016 at 10:31 a.m., CARS returned he customer's voice message giving CARS permission to speak to her friend and spoke to the customer's friend who advised that Ms. Walton's vehicle was no longer at the repair facility. CARS explained the procedures for opening a new claim.
As of today, August 1, 2016, a new claim has not been opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It is stated in your Service Contract under: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The repair facility must provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun." Here, CARS requested an estimate with the part numbers for failed the thrust arms/bushings, sway bar link and lower control arms to your vehicle so that we would be able to determine what replacement parts/assemblies are covered under the customer's Service Contract. After CARS receives and reviews this information, we will advise the repair facility/the customer on the options we have to assist the customer with the claim.
Here, neither of the two repair facilities that opened claims on behalf of the customer’s vehicle supplied CARS with the requested estimate with part numbers so that we could move forward with the July 6, 2016 and July 13, 2016 claims made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle what components would be covered under the customer's Service Contract.
Under the customer's Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what components are specifically 
CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with an estimate listing the requested part numbers before CARS can move forward with the mechanical issues the customer’s vehicle is experiencing.
The customer has Service Contract coverage through August 19, 2019. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.
JPM/jmm


8/25/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We purchased this company's warranty through the dealer in which we purchased the vehicle from for the sole purpose that we knew about the problems with the head gaskets on this motor (Ford diesel 6.0) and that it would cover it if they went. 3 months after purchase the head gaskets went, has been in the repair shop ever since (have made 4 car payments and not had the truck) and the company denied the claim. First they denied for carbon build up, said carbon is a non covered item and therefore wouldn't cover the blown head gaskets. I called the supervisor and the legal department and they reopened the claim. They requested the repair shop to remove the head gaskets and get a machine shop to measure warpage of the heads at our cost for the labor on the tear down. The repair shop called in the warpage measurements last week. The repair shop said there is nothing out of the ordinary with this claim, nothing that should not be covered. The warranty company then sent an independent adjuster out last Friday to take pictures of the truck torn apart. The independent adjuster even said that this particular company never covers anything, to not even take in any warranty jobs for CARS because they don't cover anything. I heard yesterday from the repair shop verbally that the adjuster at CARS called and denied the claim again, this time for the head bolts being stretched, and again, not a covered component and therefore wouldn't cover the head gaskets being blown. The repair shop argued with them, as they have never seen a head gasket failure without the head bolts stretching! They go hand in hand they told me. This is a joke and this product that the company sold us is not worth the paper it's written on. This repair should be covered 100% and then we want a refund on the warranty pro-rated - as we will never deal with them again. I am fully prepared to go to court if necessary, have filed a complaint with the Attorney General as well.

Desired Settlement: Fully cover the repair and refund the cost of the warranty product pro-rated after, as it's a joke.

Business Response:

PROTECTION PLUS

August 8, 2016

VIA: SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE
******** ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2004 FORD F250 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. Cook:
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 19, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:
CARS considers this matter now resolved.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Jason ** ********* 
General Counsel


8/12/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My cars have been in the shop since wednesday for an issue that is suppose to covered under warranty well after i paid out off my own pocket to get it towed to the shop and the shop went back and fourt with cars protection they finally got them to cover the issue and told the shop that the part would be here friday. Well since i didnt get offered a rental so i been using somebody else car since i was promised my car would be ready friday well i called the warranty company to see where the part was and it was like i was bothering them. And the shop where my car at havent heard from them either. I also offer to by the part myself and they said i would have to pay everything myself. After this situation im canceling this service

Desired Settlement: Waive deductible for inconvenient and not delivering on their word

Business Response:

July 25, 2016

VIA:    SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE

******** ****

BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 NISSAN MAXIMA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

1 am in receipt of your letter dated July 25, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 15, 2016 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 19, 2016 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On July 20, 2016 at 4:06 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing alternator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On July 20, 2016 at 4:20 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the alternator for $144.49. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $120.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $164.49, and we could supply the alternator as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $164.49 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility stated that they would advise CARS of the customer’s decision.

On July 20, 2016 at 4:54 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer had found an alternator for $115.00. CARS advised that after the customer properly submitted an invoice for the customer supplied alternator and labor, CARS would issue a check to the customer for $135.00.

On July 20, 2016 at 4:59 p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to ship the alternator to the repair facility. CARS then advised that the part would have to be ordered on July 21, 2016 since the deadline to place an order on July 20, 2016 had past.

On July 21, 2016 at 8:49 a.m., CARS gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle.

On July 21, 2016 at 4:15 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the part was ordered in the morning

and it would take two business days for the supplied alternator to arrive at the repair facility.

 

The supplied alternator arrived at the repair facility on July 25, 2016 at 10:05 a.m. Please see the attached FedEx tracking sheet

By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. It was the customer's decision to have CARS ship the alternator to the repair facility.

The rental benefits of the customer's service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered component (alternator) was 2.0 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; which would not entitle the customer to any rental reimbursement since the repair to his vehicle should take less than 8.0 hours. As CARS stated to the repair facility the alternator took two business days for delivery of the alternator.

The customer's Service Contract states: "TOWING We will reimburse up to a maximum of $50.00, if proof of towing is provided with an authorize claim." Here, the customer is entitled to a reimbursement of $50.00 for the towing of his vehicle to a repair facility since his claim has been authorized by CARS. The customer must submit his towing receipt to CARS from the towing company and submit to CARS with his contact identification number for reimbursement.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 19, 2017 or when the odometer registers 140,820 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

8/12/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
8/8/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 2005 Jeep Cherokee Aug/Sept 2015- along with the 2 yr extended warranty - Value Limited coverage. Since then I have taken my vehicle in for service twice for repairs and has not been resolved. 1st claim was 10/09/2015 Meineke for the check engine light and denied because the warranty did not cover the catalytic converter replacement even though the oil leak was coming from the engine. That cost came out of pocket. 2nd claim was 03/11/2016 Midas for the check engine light which the mechanic informed me that was an engine problem and once they contacted CARS customer service they were instructed to take the engine apart which they do not do at their shop. I had search for a location that specializes in engine repairs/ replaced and on 03/29/2016 I then took it to ********** which they are very familiar with engines and have received outstanding reviews for their quality of work. CARS customer service was contacted and informed of the problem and what needed to be repaired. And instead of CARS given them the ok to complete the repair which is covered under the warranty they asked them to take the engine apart to confirm. Mind you the breaking down of the engine is not covered under the warranty and I would have to pay out of pocket 1500-3000. ********** argued with the customer service rep and informed them that it was not necessary for taking those steps if they know what the problem is. ********** then pulled PCV baffle and clean-renew valve and air filter which was recommended by CARS. They also performed engine cleanse treatment and had us monitor the oil consumption every 500 miles. This vehicle isn't driven as much because of the fear I have of it back firing and the bad smell that enters the vehicle while driving. 07/26/2016 I had enough and took the vehicle back to ********** because the check engine was back on and the smell and smoke has gotten worst. CARS was contacted again and was informed again that the piston needs to be replaced and again they want them to take the engine apart and the cost comes out of my pocket. CARS will not approve the piston repairs until they go through these obstacles first. The piston and PCV was the reason I had to replace the catalytic converter and that was close to 500.00. Cleaning the PCV baffle was 470.00. According to the warranty Engine- lubricated parts contained within the engine block is covered so why are they giving me a hard time with getting this repair approved. The warranty covers replacement of the engine but they want me to spend close to 4000.00 out of pocket which that's the cost of a new engine. I have even taken my vehicle to a certified engine restoration mechanic which is hard to find to assure the work is done correct.

Desired Settlement: I am asking CARS to approve the repairs required and covered by warranty without having to take the unnecessary steps they are asking ********** to take and for me to spend. They should accept the diagnosis mechanics make when we (consumers) take our vehicles in for service. I am also asking for the refund for the cost spent on both service dates since the piston/ engine part was the cause.

Business Response: ******** ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2005 JEEP GR CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. *****
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 1, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 21, 2015.
First Claim: On March 11, 2016 at 2:30 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On March 11, 2016 at 3:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they do not perform internal engine repairs. CARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, the customer must move her vehicle. The claim was then closed.
Second Claim: On March 29, 2016 at 1:31 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.
On March 29, 2016 at 1:44 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had codes for the catalytic converter and had used ten (10) quarts of oil in 3,000 miles. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.
CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear- down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.
On April 1, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they cleaned the PVC system and advised the customer to drive her vehicle to see if the issues were still present. CARS advised the repair facility to open a new claim if the customer returned her vehicle. The claim was then closed.
Third Claim: On July 29, 2016 at 4:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS the
customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On July 29, 2016 at 4:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine is using three (3) quarts of oil in 6,500 miles. The repair facility further advised that the engine was smoking and the catalytic converter code was displayed. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures.
CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear- down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.
At this time CARS is waiting for the repair facility to let us know the cause of failure and the extent of damage so that we may move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
By the customer's signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM
PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.
The Service Contract states under Terms and 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS." The Service Contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun.” and "If it is determined a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by CARS, an authorization number will be issued for the repair..." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the Service Contract and it increases the 
probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. The repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle never provided CARS with its findings or an estimate prior to the repair of the customer's vehicle. Here, in the customer's BBB complaint, she is requesting a refund for repairs; however, CARS’ claim procedures were not followed; therefore, CARS is unable to refund the customer for any repairs performed by the repair facility.
Under the customer's Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform Mr. ********* what components are specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.
CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage as stated in the above paragraphs. CARS cannot move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle until the repair facility provides us with the cause of failure to the engine and extent of damages to the customer’s vehicle. As it currently stands, the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle is neither approved nor denied by CARS.
The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 21, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Limited Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contact my office.
Jason P. ********* General Counsel
JPM/jmm
Attachment


Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,

******** ****

7/29/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a warranty whenever I bought my truck the warranty was for the suspension Powertrain and engine. The motor blew up on the engine it's just covered by warranty of had the truck for less than a year and they told me my truck wasn't covered because the tire size that was on the truck whenever I purchased it voided the warranty so I spent $1,000 for nothing and they said they're going to prorate my warranty

Desired Settlement: For my truck to be fixed

Business Response: July 8, 2016
VIA: Submitted to BBB website
******** ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2004 CHEVY 1500 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. *****
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 5, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on February 26, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (48 Months/55,000 Miles] and the same was approved by CARS on March 16, 2015. (See Attached Service Contract)
On June 30, 2016 at 1:58 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing steer box, head gaskets and knock sensor issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.
During the processing of the claim, on July 1, 2016 at 11:33 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was altered/modified with oversized tires. The repair facility further advised that the steering box, knock sensor and head gaskets had failed.
On July 1, 2016 at 11:52 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he purchased his vehicle with oversized tires.
On July 1, 2016 at 1:35 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the customer’s vehicle was altered/modified with oversized tires. CARS further that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract the customer's Service Contract was now cancelled and CARS would issue a prorated refund with a signed release from the customer.
On July 1, 2016, CARS mailed the attached letter and Service Contract Coverage Cancellation & Release to the customer advising that his Service Contract was now void and upon CARS’ receipt of the executed Service Contract Coverage Cancellation & Release, a refund would be sent to his lienholder or the selling dealer.

By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It is stated under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(d): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles modified or altered from the original manufacturer's specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Here, on July 1, 2016, the repair facility advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the customer’s vehicle was equipped with oversized tires. On July 1, 2016, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the oversized tires were on the vehicle when he purchased it.
The customer’s service contract also states at Paragraph 2(g): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall void the service contract." However, since the customer’s vehicle was already altered/modified when the customer purchased it, CARS will refund a prorated amount of the monies that CARS received from the selling dealership for the cost of the customer's Service Contract.
Here, we assumed that the customer’s vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on March 16, 2015. It was not until the processing of the June 30, 2016 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle. The alterations/modifications of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications.
CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealer, repair facilities and customers since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Here, on July 1, 2016, the repair facility advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the customer's vehicle was altered/modified with oversized tires. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer's Service Contract is now cancelled; therefore, the customer no longer has service coverage under any of CARS service contracts.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
 

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

7/26/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: 1- customer representatives are not fully educated on the policies or contract information because i was given different information every time i called 2- The contract is not straight forward in what is covered and to what extent. 3-They have no desire to make their customer happy because i tried to come to some form of middle point and was told in so much words "this is what we offer you can either take it and leave it" and in another instance "sorry but you have to figure that out on your own" 4- base on what is listed on the contract they need to go in depth with thins so we the customer can choose whether or not to get the policy and not wait until you are in the contract before certain things are revealed to you. 5- they should put the customer satisfaction first which means they should try and do some negotiation on behalf of the customer with the mechanics so the customer feels like they care. 6- contract needs to to be revamp so the customer is aware of everything and the policy is not misleading.

Desired Settlement: I would like to get some form of compensation for the time i have wasted in regards to trying and get my car repaired and to just get back to some form of normalcy without having to go through great lengths of inconvenience.

Business Response:

July 7,2016
VIA: Submitted to BBB website
******** ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2009 NISSAN ALTIMA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. *****
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 5, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on April 19, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was approved by CARS on April 20, 2016 (See Attached Service Contract).
On June 28, 2016 at 1:08 p.m., the customer advised CARS that the front passenger window was not working. CARS then advised the customer that window motor/switches are listed as covered components under his Service Contract. CARS then reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures with him.
On June 29, 2016 at 11:54 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right front window switch issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On June 29, 2016 at 3:50 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the right front window was inoperable due to the failure of the window switch. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On June 29, 2016 at 3:52 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cost of their replacement for the right front window switch would be $62.23. CARS advised the repair facility that ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .3 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract paid $70.00 per hour for labor; therefore, total labor was $21.00. CARS advised that the claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. CARS then explained that the total value of the claim was less than the deductible; therefore, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the right front switch claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract,
On June 29, 2016 at 4:04 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to inquire about the window switch claim. CARS then reviewed the claim with him in detail.
On July 1, 2016 at 11:47 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they had made an error and the left main window switch had failed not the right main window switch. We went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the left main window
switch for $150.82. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .3 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $21.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $71.82, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however, since the labor costs were less than the deductible, we were unable to assist with the cost of labor, or pay $71.82 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would telephone us with the customer’s decision.
On July 1, 2016 at 1:10 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was unhappy with the claim allowance and that CARS quoted pricing for aftermarket parts. CARS reviewed the customer's Service Contract with him regarding parts and labor.
On July 1, 2016 at 1:54 p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to supply the left main window switch. CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, the customer’s vehicle must stay at the repair facility until the repair was completed. The repair facility advised that they would call us back.
On July 1, 2016 at 2:50 p.m., the customer called CARS to question if his vehicle had to stay at the repair facility until the repair was completed. CARS advised that the customer’s vehicle would have to stay at the repair facility until the repair was complete and we were unable to assist with rental costs. The customer then began to yell using profanities until the telephone call was ended by CARS.
On July 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to get the status of the customer’s claim. The repair facility advised that the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility.
By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (Q: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $71.82 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the main window switch. The repair facility advised us that the customer would like the supplied part shipped to the repair facility. 
The customer's Service Contract states at 2 (k): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim”. Here, all claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicles will have the $100.00 deductible will be applied.
The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (a): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: ... The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete.” Here during the processing of the June 29, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS was willing to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle, however, the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility.
For all the reasons stated above, CARS is not able to offer any assistance with the June 29, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
If the customer would like to utilize his Service Contract towards the repair of the main window switch, a new claim must be opened on behalf of his vehicle. CARS will process the claim in the same manner as the June 29, 2016 claim opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.
CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.
The customer has Service Contract coverage through October 20, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel


7/19/2016 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: 30 days ago today, my 2008 Nissan Rogue broke down. My vehicle has been at a Nissan dealership for 27 days of that. It needs a rear end differential and a drive shaft. The employee that is assigned to my claim insisted the differential be torn down to determine the cause of the failure. The dealership said this is not an industry standard because there are no internal components. The insurance company (C.A.R.S.) insisted. The agent rarely returned phone calls from me and the dealership. When I spoke with an "alleged" supervisor, I was treated very rudely. He was extremely condescending. It was about 10 days before someone finally looked it up (at the insistence of the dealership employee) and agreed it did not need to be torn down. To date, according to the dealership, the only part the dealership has received from the insurance company is the differential. I am a rural mail carrier and I need my vehicle to work. My husband drives a Ford F-150 and has been driving me when he can so I can do my job. The fuel expenses have been absolutely outrageous! I am at my wits end with these people!

Desired Settlement: For all of this frustration and inconvenience, and due to the added expenses for fuel, I would like to have any and all fees waived once the work is completed. i.e. the $100 deductible, sales tax and overage amounts for labor costs not covered in the policy.

Business Response:

June 29, 2016

VIA:    SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE

BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2008 NISSAN ROGUE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 24, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On December 21, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on December 24, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract three (3) claims have been opened as follows:

First Claim: On April 12, 2016 at 3:29 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right lower ball Joint, and tie rod issues. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility.

On April 18, 2016, CARS paid CARS paid the repair facility $5.00 via check pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract towards the cost of labor. On May 5, 2016, CARS paid our parts supplier $97.69 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of Your Service Contract for a rear front low control arm. The claim was then closed.

Second Claim:      On April 19, 2016 at 10:24 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair

facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility.

On April 22, 2016, CARS paid CARS paid the repair facility $2,131.00 via check pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract for a repair facility supplied transmission and the cost of labor. The claim was then closed.

Third Claim: On June 8, 2016 at 11:16 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential, driveshaft, lower front control arms, and input shaft seal issues. We then went over our claim procedure with the repair facility.

On June 8, 2016 at 11:40 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had no power when pressing on the gas. The repair facility advised that the check engine light was displayed; however, the repair facility had not yet found the reason. The repair facility further advised that the transmission output shaft seal was leaking, transmission fluid was low, issues with the rear differential assembly driveshaft, lower front control arm ball joints, rear differential fluid was full of metal and the drive shaft had failed.

On June 8, 2016 at 2:59 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS advised the repair facility that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility to get back to us with the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.

On June 8, 2016 at 4:17 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she wanted to move forward with the repairs without performing tear-down. CARS advised that pursuant to her Service Contract, CARS needed her vehicle torn down to find the cause of failure and to verify the extent of damage to her vehicle in order to move forward with the mechanical claim.

On June 8, 2016 at 4:36 p.m., a claims manager reviewed the customer’s Service Contract with her and advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, the customer was responsible for all tear-down charges. The claims manager advised the customer that, since several leaks were found from the rear differential seals, a tear-down of her vehicle was necessary to find the cause of failure, since seals and damage caused by leaking seals were not covered under her Service Contract.

On June 9, 2016 at 1:20 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the viscus coupler on the rear differential had failed. The repair facility further advised that the differential fluid was very dark. The repair facility further advised that the drive shaft was damaged by the u-joint having excessive play. The right front control arm ball joint assembly was installed using an improper bolt to secure the ball joint to the wheel hub.

On June 9, 2016 at 2:05 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we could move forward with the repair of the rear differential, left front ball joint and u-joints. CARS advised that since the right control arm and ball joint failed as a result of an improper bolt, CARS was not able to assist with that repair. CARS further advised that we were waiting on pricing from our suppliers before we could quote the amount we could authorize for the repairs.

On June 10, 2016 at 9:13 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the rear differential for $500.00, the drive shaft for $250.00 and the left ball joint for $27.00. CARS could assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $10.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 7.4 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $518.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,205.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $418.00 towards labor and $10.00 for the fluids needed for the repair or pay $1,205.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility was to notify CARS of the customer's decision.

On June 13, 2016 at 4:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like CARS to supply the parts, with the exception of the ball joints, to the repair facility for the repair of her vehicle.

On June 14, 2016 at 9:13 a.m., CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. CARS then gave the repair facility an estimated arrival time of June 20, 2016 for the supplied parts.

On June 20, 2016 at 1:48 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied parts had not been delivered. CARS was advised by our supplier that the parts had been shipped from two (2) different facilities and were now scheduled to arrive by June 27, 2016.

On June 28, 2016 at 9:32 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that all the supplied parts were at the repair facility.

On June 29, 2016 at 1:48 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied parts have been installed in customer’s vehicle; however, the customer’s vehicle is going into limp mode. After pulling the transmission codes from the vehicle, the repair facility believes that the previous repair facility who installed the transmission missed the rear differential binding and that is what is causing the current transmission issues. CARS advised that the previous repair facility gave the transmission a 12 month/12,000 mile warranty on the repair; therefore, the customer must take her vehicle to the previous repair facility for the transmission issues (See attached).

By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract she acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to have the parts supplied by CARS for the repairs needed for the June 8, 2016 mechanical claim opened on behalf of her vehicle.

The customer’s Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, the customer is not entitled to any reimbursement for any inconvenience caused by the loss of her vehicle; however, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to reimburse the customer in the amount of $175.00 towards her additional expenses caused by the shipping delay of the supplied parts for the June 8, 2016 claim. CARS will issue a check directly to the customer.

CARS would like to point out here that we have no control over our supplier's shipping times and delays. When made aware of delays, CARS contacts our suppliers for updated information and will advise the repair facility of any changes in the delivery date.

The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.


It is stated in the Service Contract. “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the bolts are not listed for coverage under Your Service Contract.

It is also stated under the Terms and Conditions at 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component.” Here, during the processing of the June 8, 2016 mechanical claim made on behalf of Your vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that an improper bolt (non-covered components)was used to secure the right lower control arm/ball joint (covered component) to the wheel hub and caused the damage to the control arm/ball joint. Therefore, the customer is responsible for the repair of the right lower control arm/ball joint.

The Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract state at Paragraph 2 (u): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: Coverage is superseded by any manufacturer’s warranty, TSB/factory bulletin, recall or warranty on a previous repair.” Here, the repair facility that replaced the customer's transmission placed a 1 year parts and labor warranty on the transmission on the invoice provided to CARS dated April 21, 2016; therefore, the repair facility that gave the parts and labor warranty is responsible for the repair of the customer’s transmission.

CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through December 24, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


7/13/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On July 9th of 2015, I purchased a vehicle warranty from cars protection plus. It was the premium warranty I was charged for, and told it would cover anything I needed, paying over $900 dollars. The vehicle currently has an issue with the water pump and three transmission lines- work which will cost an additional 900 dollars, yet the protection plan will only cover $69. $69 dollars is only covering half the part cost of the water pump. How do you cover HALF of a part? I didn't pay you crooks for half of the premium, did I? I tried contacting the company just prior to 5pm, did not receive an answer, then called again 10 minutes later to get an automated closed at 5 message.

Desired Settlement: It's incredulous that you cover half a part, especially when the work needed is not menial repair. It's not like I'm requesting you replace tires or something of typical maintenance. Also your consumer login could not be more useless, it gives little to no detail of what the contract entails.

Business Response:

VIA: Better Business Bureau

RE: CUST: ******** *********
VEHICLE: 2008 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO: ****** YOUR CASE NO: ********
Dear Ms. *****
1 am in receipt of your letter dated June 16, 2016, regarding the above-referenced vehicle and respond as follows: Our records indicate that on June 3, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle from **** ********** **** On that same day, the customer also applied for a Value Plus service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Service Contract on July 9, 2015. (See attached Service Contract).
On June 15, 2016 at 3:07 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission line, radiator hose and water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On June 15, 2016, at 3:24 p.m., after again reviewing our claim procedures with the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the water pump for $43.12. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $126.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $69.12, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $26.00 towards labor or pay $69.12 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice.
Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, CARS will pay the repair facility a total of $69.12 when a proper invoice is submitted to us for payment.
By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or
aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above, the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $69.12 towards the repair of her choice or having CARS supply the water pump. The repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of her choice.
It is stated in the customer’s Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS:
COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” Here, the transmission lines radiator hoses are not listed on the customer's Service Contract; therefore, these components are not covered under her Service Contract. The transmission lines and the radiator hoses and any labor associated with the replacement of these components are the responsibility of the customer.
For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to provide any further assistance with the ]une 15, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.
The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 9, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contract my office.
Sincerely,
Jason ** *********

General Counsel
JPM/jmm

7/13/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: i have a contract with this company an day under they agree my motor went out an the truck an my truck not a year old day wont me to pay for a motor

Desired Settlement: all i wont is for my motor to be fix

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 CHRYSLER ASPEN VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.* ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 3, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 13, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 4, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").

On May 18, 2016 at 1:17 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On May 20, 2016 at 3:01 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility. The repair facility advised that the customer’s vehicle was running rough and coolant was found in the oil. The repair facility found the transmission, engine, lower radiator hose, transfer case, rack, pinion and power steering to be leaking. The repair facility also found silicone debris from a previous improper repair in the radiator.

CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS further advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verily the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.

On May 20, 2016 at 3:34 p.m., an owner of the vehicle telephoned CARS to question why her vehicle needed to be torn down if the repair facility advised that an engine was needed for the repair of her vehicle. CARS advised that we required tear-down to the point of component failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. The customer then ended the telephone call.

On May 20, 2016 at 3:50 p.m., the co-owner of the vehicle telephoned CARS to advise that she had a bumper to bumper Service Contract and did not have to pay any monies towards the repair of her vehicle except the deductible. CARS advised that her Service Contract was not bumper to bumper and we assist with the repair of our contract holder's vehicles. The customer than advised that she wanted CARS to pay for any diagnostic costs she had incurred because she wants to drive her vehicle out of the repair facility.

On May 31, 2016 at 2:24 p.m., an owner of the vehicle called to inquiry why the vehicle needed to be torn down and if CARS paid to reassemble the vehicle. CARS advised that we required tear-down to the point of component failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS advised that we do not pay for any costs related to diagnostics including teardown and reassembly of her vehicle.

On June 1, 2016 at 1:46 p.m., the co-owner of the vehicle advised CARS that the repair facility does not want to tear down her vehicle and is charging her $385.00 to put her vehicle back together and for the checking fluids. CARS advised the customer that we would telephone the repair facility.

On June 3, 2016, CARS left two (2] voice messages for the repair facility to return our telephone call. On June 3, 2016 at 11:32 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer gave her permission to the repair facility to do diagnostics on her vehicle when the vehicle was brought to the repair facility.

On June 3, 2016 at 12:06 p.m., the co-owner of the vehicle advised CARS that she did not give her permission for her vehicle to be checked and she is not responsible for any costs. CARS advised the co-owner that the repair facility stated that she gave her permission for diagnostics to be performed on her vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c]: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure.

Under the customer’s Service Contract, we are not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper] coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of
damage as stated in the above paragraphs. CARS cannot move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle until the repair facility provides us with the cause of failure to the engine extent of damages to the customer's vehicle.

As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer is responsible for all charges related to teardown/diagnostics; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the cost of reassembly of her engine. Any teardown/diagnostic costs are between the customer and the repair facility.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contract my office.

Sincerely,

Jason P. *********

General Counsel

 

Consumer Response: From: ******* ****** ***************************
Date: Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: You have a new message from the BBB serving Western Pennsylvania regarding complaint #********.
To: Better Business Bureau *************************

This is Mrs. ****** regarding to my 07 Chrysler truck. They are charging me $385 to release my truck without my consent to look at the truck without calling me telling me what is going on and my insurance told this man named Chris to look at it and Chris did it now he wants me to pay $385 in order for me to release my truck. I do not have $385 they should've called me, I want them to pay for my truck and to get it fixed. Chris said water got into my motor they want me to pay to break the motor in car protection, his name is Jim. 
From: ******* **********************************
Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: You have a new message from the BBB serving Western Pennsylvania regarding complaint #*********
To: Better Business Bureau <i***********************

his im writting about the 07 chrysler the car protection plan to the people who have my truck to chech the oil level n tire pressure n aact an day didnot contect me tell me that they are going to check my pressure on the truck now they wont me to pay 385 dollar for what they should have call me before they did any thing now the car lot people will not release my truck until i pay them they money i dont have no money for what 

Business Response:

June 20, 2016

VIA: SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 CHRYSLER ASPEN VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer additional concerns. I would like to respond in the following manner:
As stated in our June 8, 2016 letter to you, on June 3, 2016 at 11:32 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer gave her permission to the repair facility to do diagnostics on her vehicle when the vehicle was brought to the repair facility.

By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. Here, the customer is responsible for all charges related to teardown/diagnostics. Any teardown/diagnostic costs are between the customer and the repair facility.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further question, please contract my office.

Jason ** *********

General Counsel
JPM/jmm

6/28/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: When we first contacted the warranty company with a claim for a part on our vehicle they refused to cover the issue, because they "didn't cover that joint", but "that joint" was part of a larger assembly that is sold as one piece and cannot be bought or used sperately. We spent half of the day calling back and forth between the repair shop and the warranty company before it was resolved. Now the warranty company wants to put a used part on our vehicle and there is no way to guarantee that it is a quality part. My husband and I cannot afford to pay the difference to put in a new part but don't deserve to drive around wondering if the drive shaft is going to give way. The warranty company has refused to use a new part nor have they offered any sort of guarantee for the used part or promise of quality.

Desired Settlement: We are asking for some sort of guarantee at a minimum, which should not be an issue if they think the used part is as serviceable as a new part.

Business Response:

June 9, 2016

VIA: Submitted to BBB website

******** ****

BBB of Western Pennsylvania *** ******* ****** ***** *** *********** ** *****

RE:      COMPLAINT ID #********

2006 PONTIAC GTO VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 7, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 12, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 16, 2016. The customer’s Service Contract will expire on June 16, 2016.

On June 3, 2016 at 10:40 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing prop shaft issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On June 3, 2016 at 1:45 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the driveshaft for $450.00. ProDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 1.4 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $84.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $434.00, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $84.00 towards labor or pay $434.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.

By the customer’s signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

It is stated at Paragraph 2(C]: PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: The Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this application is.received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. (“CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase. This Service Contract will last for the time period or mileage indicated whichever occurs first, so long as You own the vehicle.” The customer’s Service Contract expires on June 16, 2016; therefore, the supplied driveshaft will not have coverage beyond June 16, 2016.

The customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to offer any further assistance with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS has advised the customer that we are willing to provide a new driveshaft for the repair of his vehicle and all other expenses associated with the repair of his vehicle would be the customer's responsibility. The customer advised CARS that he is agreeable to this.

CARS now considers this BBB complaint as resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jason P. M********

General Counsel

 

JPM/jmm

Attachment

6/23/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Complaint Details Unavailable
6/23/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Complaint Details Unavailable
6/23/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had purchased a warranty with this company and paid a monthly premium for their services which they did not fulfill according to a signed contract.

Desired Settlement: I'm requesting a full refund of premiums paid from 12/01/2015 the date of purchase of the warranty, and to be paid the difference in full from the car part they did not cover as indicated.

Business Response:

******** ****

*** ** ******* ************ *** ******* ****** ***** *** *********** ** *****

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #********

2001 CHEVY TAHOE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-**** **** *** *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 1, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On December 1, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Independence Service Contract (Month to Month Recurring Debit). In addition, a Mastercard credit card number, V code and expiration date was provided and also the Payment Authorization form was executed for billing purposes.

Pursuant to the RECURRING PAYMENT TERMS and ACCEPTANCE TO TERMS of the

customer’s Independence Service Contract and Payment Authorization Form, CARS debited the credit card on December 4, 2015 with the credit card information supplied. The customer’s Independence Service Contract was then approved by CARS, once we received confirmation that the payment was successful.

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Independence Service Contract and Recurring Payment Terms, CARS again debited the credit card on file for the months of January 2016, February 2016, March 2016, April 2016, and May 2016. During those months, the customer had Service Contract coverage available to him in the event of a mechanical breakdown. At the conclusion of each month, the service contract expired and a new coverage term began when the credit card was debited.

On May 20, 2016 at 9:55 a.m., a mechanical claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle advising that the vehicle was experiencing left caliper issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On that same date at 10:32 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left caliper for $35.87. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.3 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $78.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $13.87, and we could supply the part as stated above; however, we would be unable to assist with labor since the labor cost was less than the deductible or pay

$13.87 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. During that telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer's vehicle.

After the repair facility provided CARS with a final invoice indicating that the repairs were complete, CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $13.87 via credit card on May 20, 2016, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed.

By the customer's signature under Acceptance to Terms, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated on the PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION FORM at RECURRING PAYMENT TERMS: “You have purchased month-to-month coverage. A NEW contract will begin monthly, starting one month from the Effective Date on Your CARS I.D. card, and will continue, as long as payment is received, until Your vehicle reaches 200,000 miles or You notify CARS, at least seven days prior to your next contract beginning that You wish to end Your coverage. You are responsible for Your method of payment. If CARS attempts to process payment from the account list below, and the charge is either declined or returned for Non-Sufficient Funds, a new contract will NOT begin and Your coverage will terminate at the end of Your current term. CARS is not responsible for overdraft fees. CARS will charge Your account up to seven days prior to Your next contract beginning. If You do not notify CARS in writing, when Your car reaches 200,000 miles or You no long own the vehicle additional payments are non-refundable. CARS may charge the account listed below to correct any errors in processing." Accordingly, based upon the Recurring Payment Terms, the customer purchased a new service contract each month that the credit card on file was debited. Therefore, the customer had service contract coverage available for his vehicle in the event of a mechanical breakdown.

Additionally, it states in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE:        CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or

aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement parts, we used the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, as stated above the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $13.87 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the left caliper. The repair facility advised us that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes. Therefore, CARS authorized and paid the May 20, 2016 mechanical claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.

The customer states in his complaint that he is requesting a full refund for all the months which he paid for service contract coverage. The customer's service contract states at "4. (b) CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: This Service Contract is non-refundable." Here, as stated above the customer’s vehicle was covered during the coverage periods of December 2016, January 2016, February 2016, March 2016, April 2016 and May 2016, in the event of a mechanical breakdown. At the conclusion of each month, the coverage lapsed and a new service contract began, after we debited the credit card on file pursuant to the Recurring Payment Terms of the customer's Payment Authorization Form. Therefore, based upon all the above information, the customer is not entitled to any refund.

As stated above, CARS is in receipt of the customer's cancellation, therefore, CARS will no longer debit the customer's credit card and he will not have any further coverage through CARS.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
 
Jason P. *********
General Counsel

JPM/cll

Attachment


5/31/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 2005 Nissan Maxima in November 2015. I had also purchased the warranty the dealership offered, which was Cars Protection Plus. March 2016 I started having problems that led me to believe the transmission was going bad. When I took it to the repair shop, I have them my warranty card and thought all would be good. The mechanic called me about a week later and informed me it was the wiring harness, a part NOT covered in my warranty. Confused, I looked at the contract and there was no where on the paper that had made me think they would not cover this part. But fine, I go ahead and tell them to start the work, rented a car (which I was also informed was only covered if the shop was working on a covered component), and preceded to await the return of my used (but almost brand new to me) car. I pay over $1,000 to have the wiring harness put in, Cars paid nothing for it. So I think all is well. However, when the very nice, patient mechanic returned my many phone calls, he informed me that the transmission was going to need looked at as well. At this point, I'm without my car for over a month and without enough saved up to rent for longer: I am furious and close to broke. Low and behold, Cars finally helps me out here--by making me pay almost $400 for the "new" transmission. The first transmission that was sent by Cars could not be out into my 2005 Nissan Maxima, for someone had cut a part of the wire that caused it to be completely useless to the repair shop. The second transmission was missing the third gear. So here I am, two months later, still no car and waiting on Cars to send the repair shop a THIRD replacement transmission. Although I am almost certain nothing will come of this and I will not be compensated for anything, I do hope that Cars will change their contract to mislead less people into the tangled mess I am in. This warranty does not give you peace of mind.

Business Response:

VIA: Submitted to BBB website

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2005 NISSAN MAXIMA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 25, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 23, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on November 25, 2015.

First Claim: On April 4, 2016 at 9:24 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing wiring harness issues. CARS advised the repair facility that the wiring harness was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.

Second Claim: On May 4, 2016 at 11:19 a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On May 4, 2016 at 12:05 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing shifting problems. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down the customer's vehicle to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer is responsible for all diagnostic and tear-down costs for his vehicle. The repair facility advised that they would contact CARS with their findings.

During the processing of the claim, it was determined that the transmission had failed. On May 6, 2016 at 4:23 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the replacement of the transmission with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1,250.00. CARS could assist with the cost of fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $48.00. ProDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 6.2 hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $434.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,632.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $382.00 towards 
labor and fluids or pay $1,632.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.

On May 9, 2016 at 9:18 a.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to ship the transmission to the repair facility. On May 10, 2016 at 10:35 a.m., CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repair to the customer's vehicle.

On May 13, 2016 at 4:06 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied transmission was refused by the repair facility because the harness had been cut. CARS contacted our supplier to ship a replacement transmission.

On May 20, 2016 at 11:29 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that that third gear was missing; however, no codes were showing on the transmission. CARS again contacted our supplier to ship a replacement transmission.

On May 25, 2016 CARS attempted to reach the repair facility to check on the arrival of the supplied transmission; however, no one answered the telephone. The tracking information shows that the engine arrived on May 24, 2016.

By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to have CARS supply the transmission to the repair facility for the repair of his vehicle.

The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any
inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have.” CARS has no control over our suppliers shipping dates or errors in shipping; however, we do have an obligation to the customer to ensure that we make every effort to ensure that the customer's vehicle is repaired as quickly as possible. Our supplied parts are to be tested by our suppliers; however, two (2) supplied transmission were found to have issues upon arrival at the repair facility. Here, due to the customer's inconvenience, CARS is waiving the $100.00 deductible for the transmission claim.

The rental benefits of the customer's service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered components (transmission) was 6.2 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; which would not have entitled the customer any reimbursement towards rental expenses. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS will issue the customer a check for $275.00 which represents the additional eleven (11) days that it took for a supplied transmission to arrive at the repair facility.

The customer Service Contract states: "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components." And under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, CARS was unable to assist with April 4, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle because the wiring harness is not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract.

The customer’s Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

CARS apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the issues with the supplied transmissions. Although CARS had no control over the shipping time of the supplied parts or the failure of the supplied transmissions, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is paying the customer for eleven (11) days of rental benefits and will waive the $100.00 deductible.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

JPM/jmm
Attachments 


Consumer Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

********* *********

5/20/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: In Feb of this year, I purchased a used vehicle with an extended warranty from CARS Protection Plus. In April, I had to have my vehicle serviced and according to the copy of the contract provided, the parts and labor should have been covered. However, the denied the claim, costing me $184.00. Advance now to April 20. I began experiencing transmission issues with my vehicle. I had the vehicle towed to the dealership for repair. Again, according to the contract, the repair should have been covered 100% minus my $100.00 deductible. However, when the dealer contacted CARS Protection Plus, the warranty company stated that they would either send a used transmission with a 400 mile or 8 day warranty( time had expired by the prior to the transmission arriving and being installed)and pay $380 or pay a total of $1168.00. Advance now to May 9. The transmission arrives and is installed, only to discover that there is no reverse gear, or it does not work. CARS PROTECTION PLUS was contacted, and they tried to ***** the issue off on their supplier. Advance in time to today, May 16. CARS PROTECTION PLUS contacted, and they advise that the replacement transmission is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow. While speaking with Ed, the (representative from CARS PROTECTION PLUS) I asked if there would be or could be any further assistance as I have been with out my vehicle for almost 4 weeks, they are repairing my vehicle with used parts and there now is no warranty.

Desired Settlement: As of now, this repair is going to cost me $1300. I feel that this warranty company should be responsible for this remaining balance as compensation for used parts being installed as well as it taking 3 1/2 weeks to complete a 8 hr job.

Business Response: May 18, 2016
VIA: Submitted to BBB website
******** ****
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2002 CHEVY SILVERADO 1500 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
1 am in receipt of your letter dated May 17, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 5, 2016. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 5, 2016. The customer’s Service Contract expired on May 8, 2016; however, CARS will pay for the transmission repair pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract since a transmission claim was opened prior to the expiration date of his Service Contract.
First Claim: On March 9, 2016 at 2:58 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing purge valve issues. CARS advised the repair facility that the purge valve was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.
Second Claim: On April 25, 2016 at 1:19 p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS further advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to perform a limited teardown on the customer's vehicle to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. CARS advised that if the limited teardown does not provide the cause of failure then a full teardown would be necessary. CARS further advised that the customer is responsible for all diagnostic and tear-down costs for his vehicle.
On April 27, 2016 at 10:56 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they had found ground metal and clutch material in the transmission pan. CARS then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $700.00. Demand labor guide stated that the repair should take 7.8 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $468.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,068.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $368.00 towards labor or pay $1,068.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.
On April 27, 2016 at 10:56 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he was unhappy with the amount CARS was authorizing for the repair of his vehicle. CARS reviewed the transmission claim with the customer. CARS further advised that pursuant to his Service Contract, CARS could only assist with $60.00 per hour for labor and the repair facility chosen by the customer charged $120.00 per hour for labor. The customer advised that he would telephone the repair facility with his decision.
On April 29, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to ship the transmission to the repair facility. Later that same day, CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repair to the customer's vehicle.
On May 10, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the supplied transmission had no reverse. CARS advised that we would notify our supplier of the problem.
On May 11, 2016 at 1:34 p.m., CARS advised the customer that we were checking on the status of the transmission. CARS also reviewed our rental benefits with the customer and advised that he did not qualify for rental benefits pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.
On May 16, 2016 at 9:44 p.m., our supplier advised CARS that the supplied transmission would arrive on May 17, 2016.
On May 16, 2016 at 2:36 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the supplied transmission should arrive on May 17, 2016. CARS advised the customer that pursuant to his Service Contract, CARS did not assist with any time lost or inconvenience caused by the loss of his vehicle.
The supplied transmission was delivered to the repair facility on May 16, 2016 at 2:55 p.m.
By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the customer chose to have CARS supply the transmission to the repair facility for the repair of his vehicle.
The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2(m): “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have.” CARS has no control over our suppliers shipping dates or errors in shipping; however we do have an obligation to the customer to ensure that we make every effort to ensure that the customer’s vehicle is repaired as quickly as possible. As stated above are supplied parts are to be tested by our suppliers; however, the supplied transmission was not working properly when installed into customer’s vehicle. Here, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is waiving the $100.00 deductible for the transmission claim.
It is stated at Paragraph 2(C): 'PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: The Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: fl) this application is_received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and f31 approved bv CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase. This Service Contract will last for the time period or mileage indicated whichever occurs first, so long as You own the vehicle. The customer’s service contract expired on May 8, 2016; therefore, since the claim was opened prior to the expiration of the customer's Service Contract, CARS will assist with the transmission claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. However, the supplied transmission will not have coverage beyond once the transmission claim is closed.
The rental benefits of the customer’s service contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered components (transmission) was 7.8 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide; which would not have entitled the customer any reimbursement towards rental expenses. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS will issue the customer a check for $200.00 which represents additional eight (8) days that it took for a second supplied transmission to arrive at the repair facility.
The customer Service Contract states: "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components.” And under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of
failure." Here, the customer refers to a claim opened in April; however, the only claim opened prior to the April 25, 2016 claim was on March 9, 2016 for purge valve issues. The purge valve is not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract.
The customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.
CARS apologizes for any inconvenience that the delay in the arrival of second supplied transmission has caused the customer. Although CARS had no control over the shipping time of the supplied parts or the failure of the first supplied transmission, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is paying the customer for eight (8) days of rental benefits and waiving the $100.00 deductible.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.


Consumer Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is not 100%   satisfactory to me however is an acceptable compromise. 

Regards,

**** *****

5/13/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My car had a wRranty on it which covered the whole engine. I have a problem with the engine and took it in to see what was wrong and I was told my engine is bad and that the warranty company needs to replace engine. So what I got was new heads and all the sludge that is still in the engine is still there and I still need a new engine. The previous owner did. Or change the oil and this company will not stand by the warranty. They are giving me all kind is excuses as to why they will not replace the engine and even with new heads I still will have problems with this engine and no warranty. They told my dealer they will fix it and never want to see this vehicle again. So that tells me they know that there is goi g to be problems with my engine and they DO NOT want to fix it. Now I get a car that is NOT fixed and they took my money but do not want to fix the issue. I want a new engine in that Carr and I want it fix right

Desired Settlement: I want a new engine in my car to fix the issue. My warranty states the whole engine is covered and the engine needs to be fixed and that means a rebuilt the engine or put a rebuilt engine in. My engine will never be right if the engine is not replaced. The sludge inside the engine will continue to damage the engine so if the sludge is not removed the engine will not be fixed.so I want a new engine replaced as my warranty states

Business Response: COMPLAINT ID #********
2004 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 25, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 22, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 5, 2015.
On January 8, 2016 at 1:37 p.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle was experiencing a head gasket issue. CARS reviewed Service Contract coverage, claim procedures with the customer. CARS further advised that the customer is responsible for diagnostic and tear-down costs for her vehicle.
On January 8, 2016 at 1:58 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she was ready to move forward with having her vehicle torn down. CARS reviewed Service Contract coverage and claim procedures with the customer.
Fifty five days later, on March 3, 2016 at 1:52 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising the customer's vehicle was experiencing cylinder head issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.
On March 3, 2016 at 3:43 p.m., we again advised the repair facility of our claim procedures. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to tear- down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear- down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. The repair facility advised CARS that they would telephone the customer regarding further diagnostic/tear-down.
On March 4, 2016 at 7:58 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on February 3, 2016 because of losing coolant. The repair facility further advised that the head gaskets were leaking, the coolant was low, there was compression in the radiator and the heads were warped. The repair facility advised CARS that they would fax an estimate of repair and warpage measurements.

Twenty one days later, on March 25, 2016 at 11:53 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the engine was full of sludge. CARS advised the repair facility to fax pictures of the engine to us. The repair facility advised that it that would get to it as soon as soon as possible but it might not be that day.
On March 31, 2016 at 2:39 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that sludge could have caused the issues with the customer's vehicle.
On March 31, 2016 at 4:03 p.m., after a management review of the picture provided by the repair facility, CARS advised the repair facility to move forward with the tear-down of the customer's vehicle. We further advised that if any further issues were found, CARS would not be able to assist with repair if it was related to sludge.
On April 8, 2016 at 3:12 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we need the warpage on the heads. The repair facility advised CARS that they had not heard from the machine shop. The repair facility advised that the head gasket failed on the left side and the right side head gasket appeared to be cracked. CARS advised that we would need cause of failure in order to move forward with the claim.
On April 11, 2016 at 4:50 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.
On April 15, 2016 at 10:10 a.m., CARS telephoned Brian to get the status of the heads. The repair facility advised that they had not heard back from the machine shop and they would keep us informed.
On April 25, 2016 at 4:11 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.
On April 26, 2016 at 10:56 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that she was unhappy that we were not providing a new engine in her vehicle since it was full of sludge.
On April 26, 2016 at 1:00 p.m., CARS left a message for the repair facility to telephone CARS.
On April 26, 2016 at 2:19 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that both heads were warped .006. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle needed the head gaskets replaced.
On April 26, 2016 at 2:28 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that she wants a new engine because of sludge in the engine. CARS advised that we were basing the repair off the repair facility’s estimate.
On April 26, 2016 at 2:58 p.m., the customer’s husband telephoned CARS to advise that the customer’s vehicle needed an engine. CARS then reviewed the estimate from the repair facility with him.
On April 27, 2016 at 9:16 a.m., CARS went over the estimated provided by the repair facility to CARS with the repair facility. CARS then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows:
We could supply the parts and fluids as follows:
Head $102.51 Timing Set $ 28.85 Fluids $ 43.90 Decking $110.00 Total $285.26
ProDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 10.6 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $70.00 per hour.
Total labor $742.00.
The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1027.26, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $642.00 towards labor or pay $924.26 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised that they would like the head set shipped and the cash allowance on all other parts.
On April 27, 2016 at 11:04 a.m., the customer advised that she did not want any repairs performed on her vehicle until she contacted CARS. The customer advised that she wanted a new engine for her vehicle. On April 27, 2016 at 3:38 p.m., CARS advised the repair that the customer advised us not to send the head gaskets until she contacted CARS. The repair facility advised that they would speak to the customer. On April 27, 2016 at 5:01 p.m., the customer again advised that she would like a new engine. CARS advised her that the lower part of the engine did not fail and an engine replacement would not be covered under her Service Contract.
By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions under Paragraph 1 (p}: "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure caused sludge or water ingestion" Here the customer's repair facility advised CARS and provided the attached photograph showing that the engine was full of sludge. Based on the findings of the repair facility, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, a replacement engine is NOT covered under the customer's Service Contract. CARS is able to assist with the repair of the cylinder head since it was not caused by sludge. However, if the customer would like to replace the engine she may take the cash allowance and use it towards the replacement of the engine. To reiterate, CARS can only pay for the repair of the cylinder heads; therefore, the total amount we can pay towards the repair of the customer's vehicle is $924.26.
The customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the
The customer's Service Contract is to be utilized to assist with the repair of her vehicle and does not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, non-covered components, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.
The customer’s Service Contract expires on May 5, 2016; therefore, upon completion of the cylinder head repair or May 5, 2016, whichever occurs first, the customer’s vehicle will no longer have any Service Coverage under CARS.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Jason ** ********* General Counsel

Consumer Response:

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,
U
******** ******

as 5 different mechanics told me that the engine needed to be replaced. I ask this company to come out and inspect the engine and they refused. The head if the service department told this adjuster from this company that the repair that they approved did not fix the problem, the car was not properly maintain by the previous owner and we did oil changes but it did not help the problem. The adjuster told me well you drove the car in. Yes I did but also had to pray that I did not have to stop because every time I had to stop the car overheated so I did not drive it in with out definite issues.  This company is putting me at risk by not doing the repairs these mechanics advised. It is not my fault the owner sold this car like this nor am I to be punished.  When they gave me this warranty that I paid for they accepted the problems I may have do to the other owners neglect.  I feel that I paid them in good faith to take car of my car and no I had the good faith that they would take care of my car.  I do not see that they are doing what I paid for in regards to fixing my car properly.  As the mechanics told me this car may be fine for a year if I am lucky with this bandaid repair. So what I am suppose to sell this car to someone else and hope they do not have problems. quite honestly I think they refused to look at the engine cause they may have to admit they need to replace the engine. Honestly that is what I have been suggested to do, do you consider this good practice by this warranty company because I sure do not accept the offer that they are giving me.  I will still have to replace the engine and this car will never be worth what I paid for it, and if someone does a car fax this information will be given to them so do you think I can sell it, no so I am out 6 grand and another 4 grand to replace the engine on my own.

5/11/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought an extended warranty for a 2004 Vw Touareg through Cas Protection Plus however when I had taken my car to a dealership, they don't accept Cars because they have in the past and were never paid for the service. I paid several hundreds of dollars for a service that the dealership will not use. C.A.R.S has been called and it was explained to them as to what was going on and their typical response was that they can not help that the dealership will not use their company. I have paid $1600+ to fix a car only to have the company say that it is not there problem because the proper steps were not taken. If a dealership will not accept the company and an individual can not file a claim themselves, what is the point of selling a service that can not be used. Furthermore what is the point of calling customer service and speaking to the supervisor Andrea, who continues to say that it is the owners responsibility to find a company to accept their product when a Wolkswagen dealership will not accept their warranty because the company did not physically pay them. I find that this does not make sense and that the company does not stand behind its products.

Desired Settlement: Either pay for having the car fixed at my expense or to be refunded the cost of the warranty due to the fact that the money paid, has been thrown away.

Business Response:

April 19, 2016

VIA: Submitted to BBB website

RE: COMPLAINT ID #1*******

PREVIOUS COMPLAINT ID #******** 2004 VOLKSWAGON TOUAREG VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms, *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 19, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. This instant complaint was filed by the actual consumer; however, please note that the same issues contained in this consumer complaint are the same issues contained in Complaint ID #********, which was originally filed by an individual who was not the customer. Both complaints are in regard to the Service Contract coverage for the above-referenced vehicle,

CARS promptly responded to that consumer complaint on April 8, 2016. A copy of which is attached for your review. However, I again respond as follows:

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract only one (1) claim was opened by a repair facility, then authorized and paid by CARS on behalf of the customer's vehicle as follows:

On October 28, 2015 at 3:39 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing fuel pump issues. During that initial telephone call, CARS went over the claim procedures in detail with the repair facility.

After it was determined that the failed component was covered, CARS authorized the fuel pump repair in the total amount of $306.78 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract. After the repair facility provided CARS with its final repair invoice, CARS paid the repair facility on November 24, 2015 via check. The claim was then closed. See attached final invoice.

On April 6, 2016 at 11:24 a.m., the customer’s boyfriend telephoned CARS and advised that he had repairs performed on the vehicle two (2) weeks prior. During that call we advised the customer's boyfriend that we would be unable to assist with that repair, because the proper claim procedures were not followed.

The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at 3(e) and 3(g): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S. with an estimate before any repairs are begun." and "If it is determined that a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S,, an authorization number will be issued for the repair” and "...No invoices or receipts will be processed without a valid authorization number.” By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the Service Contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time.

Here, however, because no initial claim was called in by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed.

As you can see from the above paragraphs, there was a previous claim opened, authorized and paid on behalf of the customer's vehicle; therefore, the customer was aware of the proper claim procedures. To reiterate, CARS was never contacted regarding the customer's recent mechanical issues and CARS was never given the opportunity to review the repairs made to the customer's vehicle repair to determine if the failed component was covered pursuant the customer's Service Contract or to determine the amount we would be able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle.

Please also be advised that our claims manager contacted the previous repair facility to ascertain as to whether or not the repair facility was currently in business and capable of performing the repairs on the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised our claims manager that they were currently in business and capable of performing repairs on vehicles. Therefore, the customer had the opportunity to take her vehicle to this repair facility to have a claim properly opened pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract

For these reasons, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we are unable to assist with the claim due to failure to follow proper claim procedures which must be followed by ail CARS’ customers.

The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through May 30, 2016. Should the customer’s vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

At this time ! would also like to address the customer's request for a refund. By the customers' signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of their Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 4(a): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated.”

Also, CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, CARS is not directed by any state statute in ************ to provide the customer with any refund of her Service Contract.

Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the customer is not eligible for any refund.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. If not, CARS is requesting that you mark both complaints responded to and properly answered by CARS.

Sincerely,
Jason ** *********
General Counsel
JPM/cll


5/4/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On March 14th my car over heated due to mechanical problems. The vehicle was towed within an hour to a local mechanic shop. The issue with the vehicle was the radiator had pretty much gone out and needed to be replace along with a thermostat and seal. Being that this was covered under warranty I called Protection Plus for assistance in the matter. After to speaking with the claims department about parts we agreed on time frame of completion of work, I was told parts would arrive 72 hours. But this didn't happen, after returning from a family vacation i decided to call down to the shop and check on the status of the vehicle. The mechanic relayed the message that no parts have shown up and they have tried call multiply times and still no answer no call back. I called Protection Plus that same day March 21st to see exactly what is going on. After speaking to two different people in the matter somehow the parts were not ordered the same day. The mechanic called me back relayed the message that the parts should be here by March 23rd at the latest and we should have your car ready by then. From March 14th to March 17th I had a rental expensive of $137.00. Protection Plus said nope we wont cover due to your car is not 8 hours of labor. Understood was the response. But after having to wait and then having to acquire another rental expense $162 due them not processing the parts claim I feel that is unacceptable. But still they won't cover that rental. After several days the car is complete and in my hands. *Important* After driving my car a few days I notice my hot and cool needle jump up down up and down. Mind you this car was supposed to be fixed and ready to roll. After letting that car sit a few days I checked if any fluids were leaking and look and behold coolant is slowly dripping. So I take the car to another mechanic shop and I have the car serviced. As the mechanic is looking around he ask me have I replaced the radiator? I reply yes and he asked if I did it or someone else? I replied I take my cars to the professionals. He replied ok and told me to come check this out. As he flashes his light on the radiator fan he shows me where a crack has been previously sealed up to keep the liquids from draining faster. He stats whoever took this off had to of cracked the reservoir tank. So now that needs to be replaced, after talking to the Protection Plus fro assistance they stated we cant help you its the mechanics fault expense will come out of your pocket. Once again replied understood. Took the loss ask the new shop to replace it. after ordering the $300 part, the mechanic decides to check the pressure and look and behold my water pump needs to be replace $376 job. So the mechanic states that there is a high percentage chance that your timing belt will need to be replace. Im not car savy so I tell them to talk to Protection plus and see what they say. After Protection Plus and the mechanic speak it is stated and that they both agree that this needs to be done, but Protection Plus will not cover this job which now went from $376 to $832 plus $175 for the rental im currently in now. But wait that's not it, here is the kick me while your down part. After personally reviewing my warranty contract all these parts are covered in this fabulous warranty contract. So I decide to call myself and see what exactly does my warranty cover. After speaking to the claims department it is stated that though we agree that the timing belt needs changing we don't accept claims based on recommendations. So I asked if my car breaks down three days from now because of timing belt then I am covered right? The claims department replied, No. since we have spoken about this claim currently we have added that the mechanic has recommended the timing belt to be changed. So later down the line if the car mechanically fails the claims will look back at the claim and see that the timing belt was recommended to be changed. In conclusion if my warranty covered car breaks down i have to pay for that out of pocket and another rental due to the fact the mechanic gave wise advice to get this done. All I want is for you to cover what the contract stats. No where on the contract does it state anything about if recommended we don't fix, warranties are in place for things like this but the business you guys are conducting are starting to fall under the line of bad business practice.

Desired Settlement: Repair the vehicle like the contract states, im taking the lose with the rental that your not covering at least you can do is get an old vet his car back the road nothing less nothing more.

Business Response: April 12, 2016
VIA: BBB WEBSITE

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2001 LEXUS GS300 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. *****
I received your letter dated April 8, 2016, enclosing the customer’s concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on February 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on March 24, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).
FIRST CLAIM: On March 15, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing radiator, radiator cap and thermostat issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.
During the processing of the customer's claim, on March 15, 2016 at 3:23 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the customer’s claim as follows: We could supply the radiator for $83.93 and the thermostat for $7.90. CARS could also assist with the coolant needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $28.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.7 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $189.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $117.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $89.00 towards labor or pay $117.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would telephone us back with your decision.
On March 15, 2016 at 4:05 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted CARS to supply the parts to the repair facility for the repair of his vehicle. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair and an estimated delivery date for the supplied parts of March 18, 2016. Since the repair facility telephoned CARS after 4:00 p.m., CARS was not able to place an order for the supplied parts until March 16, 2016.
On March 21, 2016 at 10:21 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the supplied parts had not arrived at the repair facility. CARS advised the customer that our supplier would telephone the repair facility with an update on the arrival time of the supplied parts. As evidenced by the attached shipping and tracking information, the supplied parts arrived at the repair facility on March 21, 2016 at 1:29 p.m.
On March 23, 2016, CARS paid the repair facility $117.00 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract for labor relating to the supplied radiator and thermostat. On April 11, 2015, CARS paid our parts supplier $131.83 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract for a radiator and thermostat. The claim was then closed.
On April 6, 2016 at 9:35 a.m., the customer advised CARS that during an inspection of his vehicle, a repair facility advised him that the radiator fan was broken and the check engine light was displayed when the repair facility attempted to repair the radiator fan. The customer advised CARS that the repair facility that replaced his radiator damaged the fan because the fan was not like this prior to the replacement of the radiator. CARS advised the customer that the repair facility who previously replaced the radiator was responsible to repair/replace the radiator since they damaged the repair facility.
SECOND CLAIM: On April 7, 2016 at 11:36 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.
On April 7, 2016 at 11:55 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility with low coolant and a cracked expansion tank which is part of the fan assembly. The repair facility further advised that the customer told them that the expansion tank (fan assembly) was not covered by CARS due to the previous repair facility damaging the fan assembly during the radiator replacement. The repair facility recommended that the timing belt be replaced. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
During the processing of the customer's claim, on April 7, 2016 at 12:01 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the customer's claim as follows: We could supply the water pump for $54.79. CARS could also assist with the coolant needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $12.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $266.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $232.79, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $166.00 towards labor or pay $232.79 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.
On April 7, 2016 at 4:24 p.m., CARS advised the customer that we could not assist with the replacement of the timing belt because it had not failed. The repair facility had recommended the timing belt be replaced as a maintenance item. We further advised that it was his responsibility to take care of all maintenance pertaining to his vehicle.
By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the
his service contract. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.”
When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. The customer chose to have the radiator and thermostat shipped to the repair facility. Here, CARS provided the repair facility with an estimated delivery date for the arrival of the supplied parts; however, we have no control over any shipping delays with the supplier or the carrier.
The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 1 (i): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair." Based on the information provided to CARS by the customer and the second repair facility, the repair facility that performed the repairs to the customer vehicle during the March 15, 2016 claim, damaged the expansion tank (radiator fan] during the repair of the customer’s vehicle. Therefore, the first repair facility is responsible for the replacement of the radiator fan pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract.
The customer’s Service Contract also states under the Terms and Conditions at 2 (h) and 3 (g): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: You are responsible for properly maintain the vehicle in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and to protect against further damage caused by continued operation or damage from overheating." and "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: "If it is determined that a covered
component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S., an authorization number will be issued for the repair." Here, the repair facility recommended that the timing belt be replaced; however, the timing belt had not failed; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, the replacement of the timing belt would be considered maintenance and not covered under the customer's Service Contract.
However, in a goodwill gesture, on April 8, 2016, CARS telephoned the repair facility and authorized an additional $25.00 for the April 7, 2016 mechanical claim, which was the amount we would pay our supplier for a timing belt.
In his consumer complaint the customer states that he has incurred additional rental expense due to the radiator and thermostat arriving at the repair facility one (1] business day later than the estimated delivery date. The rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract states: "The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be
responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." Here, as stated above the time to repair the covered components (radiator and thermostat] was 2.7 hours based on ProDemand Labor Guide;
therefore, the customer is not entitled to any rental benefits. However, in a goodwill gesture, CARS will issue the customer a check for $75.00 towards the cost of his rental expenses.
In summary, the customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the teardown, filters, fluids, taxes, and the difference in labor rates.
For the above reasons, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
JPM/jmm
Attachment 


5/4/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I drive a 2008 Chevy Impala, it is under warranty with cars protection plus for 48months. This is my first claim as of Monday April 11, 2016. I followed the proper producers as to getting repairs done on my vehicle(transmission failure). My cars protection plus Rep (inspector James) told me it would take 5-7 business days for the transmission for my car to reach the repair place . James told me on two different days that the repair place would receive my transmission which never arrived. Now after my vehicle has been at the repair facility for not 14 business days disassembled, Myself without my own transportation for a total of 19 days I asked my cars protection plus rep(James) when would my vehicles transmission arrive at the repair facility, his response was" I Dont know where the transmission is or when it will get there, I am waiting for the company to call me back with a tracking number!" I then said "shouldn't the tracking number been received at the time of purchase or shipment?" James told me that he would call me when he heard something, I asked so what am I suppose to do until then without a vehicle to take my children to school and work? He had no response nor did he have any empathy for my situation being that all repairs and transaction relied on there contract to provide the transmission.

Desired Settlement: I would like the warranty company to withhold there part of the contract , to handle their responsibility of having the product(my transmission) they ordered to be shipped and receipt of received in the professional manner. This company has handled or up held the provisions of there contract with any regards to myself or the repair facility.

Business Response:

May 3, 2016

VIA:    First Class Mail

***** ** ****** ***** ******* ****** *********** ** *****

RE:       BBB COMPLAINT ID #********

APRIL 11, 2016 TRANSMISSION CLAIM 2008 CHEVY IMPALA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *******

Enclosed please find our check no. ******, in the amount of $225.00, representing full and final settlement of the above-referenced matter.

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

***** ******

4/25/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On March 25,2016 we went to ****** Auto in ******* ***** ** to purchase a vehicle where we had previously purchased a 2003 ford f-150 truck on July 31, 2014 & purchased CARS protection Value Plus unlimited mileage 36 month plan for $995.00. Never had a claim on said truck. Everything we inquired about being a claim was not a covered claim. ********* ******* owner of ****** auto filled out the cancellation request for the warranty & faxed it to CARS on March 25, 2016 the same day the truck was paid off. The truck was financed by ******** Auto in **********. In the service contract it states that if the vehicle was financed the refund will be sent to the lien company a prorated monthly refund of the amount received by CARS for the service contract less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00) . We feel we should be refunded the amount of money left on the contract less the $50.00 service fee which comes to $995.00 / 36 = $27.64 per month X 16 remaining months = $442.22-$50.00 = $392.22. Spoke with CARS today & was told that we are not due a refund because said truck has been paid off ??

Desired Settlement: The remaining amount of the service contract due to us in the amount of $392.22 to the finance company where the contract was financed. Our account is still active there & I have been in contact with them & they are aware of the refund process & have said that when a refund comes in they will send us a check !

Business Response:


April 19, 2016

VIA: BBB WEBSITE

RE: BBB COMPLAINT ID #********

2003 FORD F150 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your April 18, 2016, letter enclosing the consumer complaint and respond as follows: On July 31, 2014, the customers purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customers also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on August 1, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract").

On March 25, 2016 at 1:40 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the selling dealer who sold the customers their above-referenced vehicle. The dealer was inquiring about a potential  refund of the customers Service Contract and the amount of any refund because the customers no longer owned the vehicle. During that telephone call, we explained to the selling dealer several times that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customers' Service Contract and Kentucky State statute, the customers would only be entitled to a pro-rated refund if there was currently a lien on the vehicle. CARS also explained to the selling dealer that the customers would also be required to fill out and submit a Service Contract Cancellation Form. CARS then faxed to the selling dealer the Service Contract Cancellation Form to be executed by the customers.

On April 2, 2016, CAR received the Service Contract Cancellation Form executed by the customers, which stated that the vehicle loan was paid off. Thereafter, on April 5, 2016, CARS mailed a Refund Rejection to the customers advising them that no refund was available since the lien on the vehicle was paid off. See copies of the Cancellation Form and Refund Rejection attached for your review.

On April 15, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from one of the customers inquiring as to why the refund request was rejected. During that telephone call, she advised that on the date they submitted the Cancellation Form, the lien on the vehicle was paid off. During that telephone call, we advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Conti act, there would be no prorated refund available since there was no longer a lien on the vehicle. We further explained to the customer that no refund would be available unless the vehicle was declared a total loss or if the vehicle was repossessed by the lien holder.

 

By the customers' signature on their Service Contract, they acknowledged that they read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of their Service Contract, It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraphs 4 (a) & (d): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by CARS for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at anytime by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a monthly prorated refund of the amount received by CARS for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid.”

Please be also advised that CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, CARS is not directed by any state statute in Kentucky to provide the customers with any prorated refund of their Service Contract.

As stated above, CARS clearly advised the selling dealer on March 25, 2016 that the customers would only be entitled to a prorated refund, if there was still a lien on the vehicle; however, since the Service Contract Cancellation Form stated that the lien on the vehicle was paid off, the customers are not entitled to any refund pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of their Service Contract.

After considerable review and in an effort to amicably resolve this matter, CARS in a good will gesture, will approve and process a prorated refund to the customers through the dealer. The total amount of the prorated refund due the customer is $364.78. According to our calculations, CARS is responsible for $282.92, which will be sent to the dealer from CARS. This amount is based on the total amount of money received by CARS from the dealer for the wholesale cost of the customers’ service contract, less twenty-one (21) months utilized on their Service Contract, and also less a $50.00 cancellation fee.

Once the prorated refund is processed and mailed, CARS will provide the BBB with written verification that the refund was sent The dealer will also be responsible for his portion of the customers' refund of $81.67, which is the prorated amount based on the markup/profit that the dealer retained when the Service Contract was purchased by the customers.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Jason ** *********
General Counsel
JPM/cll

Attachments


Consumer Response:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Received letter today in the mail that was sent to ****** Auto & copy of the check. Have not heard from them on this matter as of yet. Thank you for handling this situation so promptly. 

Regards,

**** *******

4/19/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a warranty/service contract and they cars protection plus is denying my claim unfairly and are unwilling to work to resolution. Throughout the process I asked them if any thing was needed from me and if everything was going as it should they agreed and then at completion they claimed a step was missed and are denying entire claim. I see many instances where this company was involved with wrong doing on complaints I am adding my complaint into the mix.

Desired Settlement: Pay the portion of the claim covered by the service contract.

Business Response: March 29, 2016
VIA: Submitted to BBB website
******** ****
RE: COMPLAINT ID# ********
2009 AUDIA4 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 29, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 20, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on November 29, 2014.
On March 7, 2016 at 2:43 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures.
On March 7, 2016 at 3:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on March 7, 2016. The repair facility advised that customer's vehicle was misfiring, experiencing loss of power and the check engine light was displayed. CARS then went over our claim procedures in detail. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility to hold all parts and any repairs done without prior authorization would be denied by CARS. CARS advised the repair facility to telephone CARS with their findings.
On March 15, 2016 at 9:03 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that cylinder #4 forward intake valve was damaged and need to be sent to a machine shop for diagnosis. CARS reviewed with the repair facility that they would need to obtain the customer’s permission to send the head to the machine shop. CARS further advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer was responsible for any diagnosis charges. CARS further advised that no repairs should be completed without authorization from CARS. We advised the repair facility to get back to us with their findings.
On March 15, 2016 at 4:51 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of the claim and if we needed anything from him or the repair facility. CARS advised that everything was going well at 
that time and we were waiting on the report from the machine shop. We explained that we would move forward with the claim when we received the machine shop's findings and their estimate for repair.
On March 25, 2016 at 9:19 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was no warpage found on the head. The repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle needed head bolts, gasket valve crank kit, intake valve, seals for the cam injector, timing chain guide and turbo solenoid valve. The repair facility further advised that upon start up there was a slight miss that could be coming from the high pressure fuel pump. The repair facility faxed their invoice showing parts and labor charges for CARS' review.
On March 25, 2016 at 9:53 a.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle had a slight miss on start-up and no recoding on start-up confirming that the customer's vehicle had been repaired.
On March 25, 2016 at 10:36 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance on the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. The repairs to the customer's vehicle were performed without prior authorization from CARS. CARS advised the repair facility that we reviewed our claim procedures with them on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016.
On March 25, 2016 at 10:50 a.m., CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance on the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. The repairs to the customer’s vehicle were performed without prior authorization from CARS. CARS advised the customer that we reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016.
On March 25, 2016 at 11:25 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the claim with the customer. The claims manager advised the customer that CARS does not pay for unauthorized claims and that the repair facility was instructed by CARS to not to perform any repairs without prior authorization from CARS. The customer advised that he would like a refund of his Service Contract. The claims manager then referred the customer to our cancellation department.
On March 25, 2016 at 11:55 a.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like to keep his Service Contract in effect but would like to review his Service Contract cancellation options. CARS then reviewed his state's cancellations provisions with him.
By the customer’s signature on his Service Contract the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from C.A.R.S." Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle was advised by CARS that any repairs done without prior authorization would be denied by CARS on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016. However, the repair facility performed the repairs to the customer’s vehicle without prior authorization from CARS.
The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at 3(e) and 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S. with an
estimate before any repairs are begun." and "If it is determined that a covered component has failed and an estimate for the repairs is approved by C.A.R.S., an authorization number will be issued for the repair" and "...No invoices or receipts will be processed without a valid authorization number." 
By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the Service Contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. The repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle never contacted CARS with the cause of failure to his vehicle and never provided an estimate for the repair of his vehicle so CARS could move forward with the processing of the claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.
As you can see from the above paragraphs, the repair facility was made fully aware of CARS’ claim procedures stated in the customer's Service Contract. In addition, our claim procedures were discussed with the customer on March 15, 2016 by the claims adjustor and the repair facility was made aware of CARS' claim procedures by the claims adjustor on March 7, 2016 and March 15, 2016. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the repairs made to the customer’s vehicle repair to determine if the failed component was covered pursuant the customer's Service Contract or to determine the amount we would be able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.
As evidenced in the above paragraphs, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim due to failure to follow proper claim procedures which must be followed by all CARS' customers.
The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through November 29, 2017. Should the customer's vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under his Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.


4/13/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Well we buy a van dodge 2500 from a dealer ***** * cars sale and we buyid the warranty with cars protection plus on 12/11/15 and it covers a lot of parts of the engine and transmission the cover is for 3 months or 4500 milles on 02/19/16 its was on Saturday the engine start doind o lot of noise and shaken we call cars protection plus and they were enter we live a masege ans a girl call me on 02/23/16 and a told her about it and she say i can took the van to the mechanic so mechanic told me the engine is mest up no working anymore he say the cranks are not working and mess up a lot of pars like the heat of the engine he say we neen to replaced the engine so we call cars protection plus they never enter we keep calling after someone say the they gannna send a agent and look tje engine so they never came we keep calling so we espok with some tipe a frank and steve thwy tell the mechanic to open the engine bc they want to know exactly the problem but they say they not gling to pay for that so we open the engine we tell they the problem they never enter they only transfer to a difrent operations so we never hear from this company all that i want is this company pay what is on the contract im so estret out we pay cash for the van the mechanic is fixing the van a dont have more money a pay 3500 cash and i have to pay 2000 to fix the van and i dont have the money and im losing job bc i dont have a van a cant not rent want bc they say they dont pay a rent to car and that is on the contract and also the town i just want to someone help me i work in construction this type a company neen to be responsible for they accion they were laft bc im mexican i just need some help and they can pay what they say in the contact .here is the info for the van 2001 dodge ram 2500 vin # ***************** thanks

Desired Settlement: I just. Need. Someone the help me

Consumer Response: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:25 PM, *********************** <***********************> wrote:

Ok i see the paper so we fix the truck we par 2000 dallars now whats can i happend this company tell me to open tje engine we did and we fixed so now what 

Business Response:

Attached please find CARS' response.

March 24, 2016
VIA: SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2001 DODGE 2500 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****
Dear Ms. *****
1 am in receipt of your letter dated March 24, 2016 advising CARS of the above-referenced consumer additional concerns. I would like to respond in the following manner:
The customer states in his March 23, 2016 reply to the BBB regarding our March 22, 2016 response letter that he would like to know what happens next during the processing of his claim.
By the customer’s signature, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. The Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear- down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary tear-down and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure. As stated in our previous letter, CARS advised the repair facility on February 29, 2016 and March 4, 2016 that in order for CARS to move forward with the processing of the customer’s claim, the repair facility must let CARS know the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. As of today, March 24, 2016, the repair facility has not provided that information to CARS.
It states at Paragraph 1(c): “1. COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS." The service contract further states at 3(e) and 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs have begun, and "....No invoice will be processed without a valid authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information." The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s Service Contract are the same claim procedures that all CARS' customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers’ service contract.
Additionally, at Paragraph 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from C.A.R.S." All CARS customers must follow and adhere to the claim procedures above listed for their claims to be processed. CARS will provide an authorization number to the repair facility for repair of the customer's vehicle when it is determined that the failure of the customer’s vehicle is covered under the customer's Service Contract.
CARS would like to point out here that the claim procedures have been reviewed with the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle on February 24, 2016, February 29, 2016 and March 4, 2016.
Additionally, on March 22, 2016 at 4:18 p.m., and March 23, 2016 at 9:25 a.m., CARS left voice messages for the repair facility to find out the status of the customer's engine claim.
As stated in our March 22, 2016 letter, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, it is necessary for the repair facility to provide CARS with a proper diagnosis and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle as stated in the above paragraphs. CARS cannot move forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle until the repair facility provides CARS with the cause of failure to the engine and the extent of damages to the customer’s vehicle.
If you have any further question, please contract my office.
Sincerely,
JPM/jmm
Attachment 


4/5/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Complaint Details Unavailable
4/1/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Complaint Details Unavailable
3/18/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased an unlimited warranty with my vehicle. Long story short, 1/2 turbochargers is bad and needs replacing. The manufacturer of the vehicle recommends, both turbos be replaced at the same time yet, CARS will not honor that. Okay fine my second issue is that the manufacturer also warranties, the turbo till 82000 miles. ImI'm at94000 miles just out.of.the mileage, but CARS wants to replace the turbo with a turbo of similar mileage. This makes zero since except for being cheap. I want them to at least supply a rebuilt or remanufactured turbo.

Desired Settlement: I Want cars to pay for a rebuilt or remanufactured turbo. Not a used one with similar mileage.

Business Response: RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2008 BMW 135i VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
I am in receipt of your letter dated February 29, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. 1 would like to respond in the following manner: On or around June 16, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 2, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).
Since the inception of the customer’s Service Contract, two (2) mechanical claims were called in by repair facilities on behalf of the customer’s vehicle as follows:
First Claim: On July 8, 2015 at 1:29 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the left door latch and the left window regulator. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On that same date, July 8, 2015 at 1:40 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the starter for $125.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair, including tear-down, should take 2.2 hours to complete and the repair facility labor rate was $85.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $187.00. We explained that the total value of the claim was $312.00, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $187.00 towards labor or pay $312.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer's vehicle.
On July 24, 2015 CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $312.00 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed.
Second Claim: On February 25, 2016 at 1:59 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the rear turbo charger issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On February 26, 2016 at 1:26 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the turbo charger for $250.00 and gaskets for $25.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 12.0 hours to complete, and the repair 
facility labor rate was $85.00 per hour for labor. CARS will also pay for 1.0 hours of diagnostics/tear- down at the repair facility's $85.00 per hour labor rate. Therefore, total labor was $1,105.00. We explained that the total value of the claim $1,380.00, and we could supply the part as stated and assist with the cost of labor in the amount of $1,105.00 or pay $1,380.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would get back to CARS with the customer's decision.
On February 29, 2016 at 11:44 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the customer. The customer advised that he did not want a used turbo charger. CARS advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS could offer a used turbo charger for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.
By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new, rebuilt or remanufactured part when replacing a failed component. Here, the customer has the option of taking the cash allowance of $1,445.00 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the used turbo charger and gasket.
CARS would like to point out here that the turbo charger that was quoted to the customer and the repair facility did in fact have fewer miles than the turbo charger that was in the customer’s vehicle. It is very likely that the replacement turbo charger for the customer’s vehicle will have less mileage than the turbo charger in his vehicle; however, the original replacement turbo charger may no longer be available since several days have passed since we discussed this part with our supplier.
At this time CARS is waiting to hear back from the repair facility regarding the customer's decision so that we may move forward with February 26, 2016 turbo charger claim.
The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 2, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


3/15/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: i bought The car warranty an Took my car in for servic, the technician diagnosed the car an it needed a lot of work. When I placed a claim with Cars Protection Plus they said they will cover what was needed, come to find out it was only $60 that they where going to cover/ repair and anything extra has to come out of my pocket. I had the warranty plan since February of 2015 an I cancelled in October they are trying to refund me less that half of the full amount of money I paid, when I never made an actual claim that they have paid for.

Desired Settlement: Please give me back my full refund.

Business Response:

RE:          COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 BMW 5451 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 15, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:

On December 10, 2015, CARS mailed check no. 228006 in the amount of $661.71 to the customer's lienholder with the attached letter. We also sent a letter (attached) to the selling dealer advising him of the amount and his responsibility to issue a check for of his portion of the refund to the lienholder.

On January 21, 2016, CARS was advised by the selling dealer that he and the customer had agreed that the selling dealer would issue a refund in the amount of $******.

On January 22, 2016, CARS issued check no. ****** in the amount of $****** to ensure that the customer's Service Contract was properly refunded pursuant to ***** statute.

CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. CARS is directed by state statute in Texas to issue a prorated refund to the customer for the cancellation of his Service Contract. Therefore, pursuant to his Service Contract the customer is entitled to a prorated refund.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason P. *********

General Counsel

 

Consumer Response:

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

 Cars protection has not returned my refund check nor has ***** auto group return my refund check. I have contacted ***** auto group questioning about my refund check and they have not returned any of my calls nor answered my concerns.

Regards,

******** ******

Business Response:

February 24, 2016

COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 BMW 5451 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

1 am in receipt of your letter dated February 22, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:

As stated in our previous letter on December 10, 2015, CARS mailed check no. ****** in the amount of $****** to the customer's lienholder. Our bank confirmed that this check has cleared the bank.

On January 21, 2016, CARS was advised by the selling dealer that he and the customer had agreed that the selling dealer would issue a refund in the amount of $******. On February 22, 2016 at 2:06 p.m., CARS spoke to the selling dealer and the refund check had not yet been issued to the lienholder. However, CARS was assured by the owner of the selling dealership that the check would be issued immediately to the customer's lienholder.

On January 22, 2016, CARS issued check no. ****** in the amount of $****** to ensure that the customer's Service Contract was properly refunded pursuant to Texas statute. As of yesterday February 23, 2016, our check no, ****** had not yet been cashed by the lienholder. As per the customer’s request via the BBB, CARS placed a stop payment on check no. ******.

On February 24, 2016, CARS mailed check no. ****** in the amount of $****** to the customer's lienholder with the attached letter.

CARS would like to advise the customer that in CARS’ experience with previous refunds, it has taken up to six (6) weeks for the lienholder to process our refund checks.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

 

JPM/jmm

3/9/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a limited warranty from CARS for an 2006 Audi that I purchased. It states that my transmission is covered under warranty, when my transmission went bad, I took my car to Audi to have the transmission fixed, CARS called and let me know that I needed to take my car elsewhere so that a teardown and diagnostics be done to determine what caused the transmission to go bad. I asked where did they suggest for me to take the car? They suggested that I take the car to ****** , which I did. I was then told that the teardown and diagnostics was to be paid by me. which was $607. After paying that, they did order the transmission for my car. I was called again by ****** to let me know that my bill was now $1078. The total bill was 3300. I ended up paying more than the warranty company. My car has been in the repair shop for almost two weeks When I asked about a rental car, they said they only pay foo 8.8hrs which is the time it should take to repair a transmission, however the transmission had to be ordered, which takes a day or so, they only wanted to give me 25.00 for a rental ( the warranty has a $300.00 limit. I believe that they are using deceptive practices against the warrantors. If I didn't have the $607 dollars for teardown, I would not have been able to use the warranty. they bank on people not having the money for the teardown and diagnostics so that they don't have to cover the warrantied parts. Also I found a case ******* *** **** vs CARS protection Plus. as a part of its judgment the trail court ordered a permanent injunction against CARS Protection Plus stating that they are prohibited from imposing teardown and diagnostic testing costs on its warranty holders for the mere purpose of determining why a covered part was damaged or failed, now that case was in ******** not sure if that will hold up is ** , but I still believe they should not be using these type of practices on their warranty holders . They also didn't pay the sales tax on the covered part, which cost me about $200.00

Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded for the teardown expenses as well as rental car fees that I had to pay while they order my covered part.

Business Response: February 4, 2016
VIA: BBB WEBSITE

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2006 AUDI A6 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
I am in receipt of your letter dated February 1, 2016 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On September 18, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 19, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).
On January 4, 2016 at 1:24 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer's son advising that the customer’s vehicle was transmission issues. CARS reviewed transmission coverage and claim procedures pursuant to the customer's Service Contract.
First Claim: On January 11, 2016 at 1:46 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On January 11, 2016 at 2:48 p.m., CARS contacted the repair facility to inquire if they performed internal transmission work. The repair facility advised that they only performed removal and replacement of transmissions. CARS then advised the repair facility that the customer would have to move her vehicle to another repair facility capable to perform tear-down to the point of component failure.
On January 11, 2016 at 2:50 p.m., CARS advised the customer that the repair facility that her vehicle was at for the transmission issues with her vehicle does not perform internal transmission work. CARS further advised that the repair facility's labor rate was $115.95 per hour and her Service Contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. We advised that she would have to move her vehicle to a repair facility that is capable of performing internal transmission work. The claim was then closed.

Second Claim: On January 18, 2016 at 2:28 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On January 18, 2016 at 3:15 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on January 15, 2016. The repair facility advised that there were no leaks and the fluid was full and varnished. The repair facility further advised that check engine light was displayed along with seven (7) codes and none were transmission codes. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.
On January 19, 2016 at 3:43 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to ask what was covered under her Service Contract. CARS advised that her Service Contract covers internally lubricated parts within the transmission housing. CARS advised that without teardown to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage, CARS would be unable to move forward with her transmission claim.
On January 25, 2016 at 10:46 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was that the clutch drum broke causing metal in the fluid.
On January 26, 2016 at 9:31 a.m., after CARS had the opportunity to check on the availability of parts, we then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply a transmission for $1,000.00. We could also authorize $75.00 towards fluid for the repair. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 8.8 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $528.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,503.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $428.00 towards labor and $75.00 towards fluids for the repair or pay $1,503.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.
On January 26, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of her choice. CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle.
On February 2, 2016 at 2:26 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to question the amount she paid for the repair of her vehicle. CARS advised that we were informed by the repair facility she would take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of choice. We advised that she had the option of having CARS supply a transmission to the repair facility for her vehicle. The customer advised that the repair facility never gave her that option. CARS advised that she would have to speak to her repair facility about not presenting her with that option.
CARS will pay the repair facility in the amount of $1,503.00 via credit card upon receipt of a proper invoice.
By the customer's signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.
The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component
failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. CARS is not responsible for any tear-down time.
The Service Contract states under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair will be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility’s rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference." During the claim intake calls on January 18, 2016 the repair facility advised CARS that the cost of labor was $95.00 per hour. Upon receipt of a properly submitted invoice to CARS from the repair facility, CARS will pay for 8.8 hours of labor at $60.00 per hour for the January 18, 2016 transmission claim. As stated above, the time allowed for repairs is based on Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide. The customer is responsible for any amount of time over the allowed amount. CARS is not responsible for any tear-down time.
The customer's Service Contract states: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract
Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of
reason, is not included." Here, as stated above the time to repair/replace the covered components was 8.8 hours. Therefore, CARS will pay the customer $25.00 toward the rental costs incurred during the repair of her vehicle.
It is also states at Paragraph 1 (s): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Taxes and repair facility charges." Here, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, she is responsible for any taxes incurred with the repair of her vehicle. 
Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.
CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the customer's Service Contract. The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through September 19, 2016. Should her vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of her Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I reviewed that response from CARS, however, in the response, it states that yes they contacted me and explained to me that AUDI was charging $115.00 /hr for labor and they pd $60/hr, and suggested that I take my car somewhere else, in the response it states that I was given a decision to either take the allowance that they would give me or approve the repairs, CARS states they told the repair faculty to explain to me and get back to them with my decision, Well the repair shop NEVER explained that it me, my question is, Why didn't my warranty company call me and explain to me what my options were, just as you did when my car was at the audi shop. My main reason for filing this complaint is that CARS in violation the Consumer Protection Law by making me pay for tear down and diagnostics for this warranty. Also, I called and spoke with my adjuster ( Tanner) he stated that I my transmission was rebuilt, The repair shop says it was replaced. They also give a complete different issue as to what was actually wrong with my transmission,  My point is that had the warranty company called and let me know what my options were, I could have saved myself a lot of money by possibly going to a place that would work with the money given to me from the warranty company.

Regards,

******** ********

Business Response:

Attached please find CARS' response.

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2006 AUDIA6
VIN (Last 8): 6*******
OUR FILE NO.: ******


Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 18, 2016 enclosing the additional concerns of the customer regarding the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:

In her additional concerns the customer states her main reason for her BBB consumer complaint is that CARS is making her responsible for payment of the tear-down and diagnostic charges related to the January 18, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of her vehicle. By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of
component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.”

CARS includes teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. CARS is not in any violation of any Consumer Protection Law in Pennsylvania that prohibits the customer from being responsible for tear-down and diagnostic charges. The invoice submitted by the repair facility shows a tear-down charge of $570.00, which is the customer's responsibility.

In the customer's additional concerns she questions why CARS did not go over the options for the repair of her vehicle as we did when her vehicle was at the first repair facility. The customer’s Service Contract states at Paragraph 3(a]: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a repair facility, within the continental United States, open to the public during normal business hours and capable to: perform tear-down to the point of component failure, determine the cause and extent of damage, and rebuild the component if CARS deems necessary. The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete. CARS reserves the right to have the repairs performed at a location other than the one you have selected."

On January 11, 2016 at 2:50 p.m., CARS telephoned the customer to advise that the first repair facility did not perform internal transmission work. We advised that she would have to move her
vehicle to a repair facility that is capable of performing internal transmission work. CARS gave examples of repair facilities that perform transmission repairs. CARS would not have been able to move forward with the January 11, 2016 transmission claim if the customer had not moved her vehicle.

Additionally, as a courtesy to the customer, CARS further advised that the repair facility's labor rate was $115.95 per hour and her Service Contract paid up to $60.00 per hour and that she might look for a repair facility that had a lower labor rate. Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract the customer has the freedom to decide what repair facility she chooses to take her vehicle to for repair as long as the repair facility is qualified to do the repair work.

On January 26, 2016, at 9:31 a.m., after reviewing the repair facility’s estimate (see attached quotation sheet) for a rebuilt transmission, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the transmission claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply a transmission for $1,000.00. We could also authorize $75.00 towards fluid for the repair. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 8.8 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $528.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,503.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $428.00 towards labor and $75.00 towards fluids for the repair or pay $1,503.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.

On January 26, 2016 at 10:41 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of her choice. CARS provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer’s vehicle.

Here, CARS provides the information on the available allowance and/or available supplied parts to the repair facility because the repair facility is our main contact and source of information in making sure the customer's vehicle is properly repaired. This also gives the repair facility the option to discuss other options that that the repair facility may be able to offer the customer using our cash allowance. We provided the repair facility with the above information and requested that the repair facility review the information with the customer. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to use the cash allowance. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must go over the options directly with the customer. We would also like to point out here that the customer did not contact CARS to discuss the cost of her repair until February 2, 2016 after the repair was completed. Any issues regarding the lack of information from the repair facility regarding the options CARS offered to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle are between the customer and the repair facility.

The customer is also questioning if the transmission in her vehicle is a rebuilt transmission or a used transmission. As stated above the repair facility verbal quote to CARS reflects that they would be rebuilding the transmission in her vehicle; however, the invoice provided to CARS states that the repair facility replaced the engine in her vehicle with a used transmission (see attached invoice).

CARS’ service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

As evidenced in the above paragraphs, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the customer's Service Contract and is unable to provide any further assistance with the January 18, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,
Jason ** *********
General Counsel



3/7/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Had a 3/month, 4,500 mile warranty from CARS Protection Plus for a used car we purchased on November 11, 2015 from ******* Motors. It is a 2008 Subaru Impreza. I took it to my local mechanic for a look and he said the engine was not leaking any fluids and was in overall good shape. On Saturday, February 6, 2016, I noticed a burning smell coming from the engine compartment as I drove home - I was less than a mile from my driveway. No engine lights came on, but when I opened the hood I could see oil leaking out of the right side of the engine. At that time the oil light came on and I shut off the engine. Because it was Saturday, I waited to have the car towed until Monday. On Monday, February 8, 2016, I had the car towed to **** **** Service Center in ************* He is a certified Subaru shop and we take all of our cars there. He had to take apart the engine to determine what was wrong. He found that the right cylinder head developed a problem that stopped the flow of oil and cause the head to get hot. This in turn caused a seal on the right side to develop a leak sending the oil out of the engine. We explained this to an adjuster at CARS Protection Plus who denied the claim saying they don't cover seals or oil problems. When you get a warranty that covers engine problems, is my situation an engine problem beyond my control? I now have a $2,300 bill to put the engine back together with new seals and gaskets, and I believe CARS Protection Plus warranty should cover some if not all of the work needed to make this right.

Desired Settlement: I believe CARS Protection Plus should pay for this claim because the oil leak happened AFTER the problem in the cylinder head caused it to heat up thus causing the seal to fail AFTERWARDS.

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2008 SUBARU IMPREZA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your February 16, 2016 letter enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint and respond as follows: On November 14, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on November 18, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). The customer's Service Contract expires on February 18, 2016.

On February 9, 2016, at 2:12 p.m., a mechanical claim was opened by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing cylinder head, timing belt, water pump and valve cover issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On February 9, 2016, at 2:35 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had an oil leak on the right side of the engine. The repair facility advised that the cam seal became overheated and melted causing an active leak. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle needed a head, the intake valve was stuck and the timing belt was contaminated from the oil leak. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle and contact CARS with their findings.

On February 10, 2016, at 11:54 a.m., the repair facility advised that after the front cover was removed they found the right cam seal had melted and caused an oil leak. The repair facility advised that the cam caps and rocker arms were discolored and the cylinder head needed to be replaced. CARS then advised the repair facility to fax an estimate to CARS for review.

On February 11, 2016, at 9:34 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the failure to the customer's vehicle was caused by an oil leak; therefore, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS was not able to assist with the repair to the customer’s vehicle.

On February 11, 2016, at 9:34 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the customer and advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS was not able to assist with the repair to the customer’s vehicle.

On February 11, 2016, at 11:13 a.m., CARS reviewed the claim with the repair facility and advised that according to the estimate submitted by the repair facility, all of the failures to the engine were caused by oil leaks. CARS advised that pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is unable to assist with any failures caused by oil leaks.

By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. The customer’s service contract states under Covered Components: "SEALS & GASKETS: NOT COVERED:       Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with

replacement of a covered component. Additionally, cylinder head gaskets are covered for combustion and coolant leaks. Intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks only. NOT COVERED: oil and vacuum leaks." Furthermore the customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle found that a failed cam seal (non-covered component) caused an oil leak which caused the damage to the customer's vehicle.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

For these reasons, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the February 9, 2016 claim made on behalf of his vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

 

2/19/2016 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: purchased a extended car warranty from cars protection plus. the contract states the parts which are covered. a car starter is stated as being covered by the plan. the contract tells how the parts are covered and labor up to 54 dollars per hour. The starter went up in my 2004 Volvo xc90. I had the truck towed to a auto shop, own expense. the auto shop did everything asked of them by cars protection plus. The cost was parts $249.32, labor $138.00 grand total $419.32. Here is my complaint, cars protection plus only paid about 11% of the bill which was $46.72. I would be better off saving the money spent on the 2 year unlimited miles contract with cars protection and used the money to help pay out of pocket. This company did nothing it advertised in the contract. from the looks of it I was lucky to get anything out of them.

Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund for the contract which cars protection plus did not honor or cover at least 75% of my repair and honor any future claims as written in the contract with similar results in coverage.

Business Response:

January 27, 2016

VIA:    SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2004 VOLVO XC90 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 26, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On July 2, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 31, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On January 14, 2016 at 1:24 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing starter issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On January 14, 2016 at 1:37 p.m., after again reviewing our claim procedures with the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the starter for $86.72. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $60.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $46.72, and we could supply the part as stated above; however we were unable to assist with labor since the labor cost was less than the deductible or pay $46.72 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

On January 18, 2016 CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $46.72 via credit card pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. The claim was then closed.

By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, as stated above the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $46.72 towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the starter. The repair facility advised us that the cash allowance would be used towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

Upon further review of the customer's claim, CARS is willing to pay the remainder of the labor costs ($138.00 labor - $60.00 allowance) in the amount of $78.00 to the customer.

However, in his consumer complaint the customer stated that he would like a full refund of the amount he paid for his Service Contract. The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at anytime by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid."

CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the service contract. CARS is not directed by Maryland statute to issue a refund for the cancellation of the customer's Service Contract.

If the customer currently has a lienholder and supplies CARS with the name and address of his lienholder; CARS will provide a General Release for the customer's signature. Upon receipt of the executed General Release, CARS will issue a check for a prorated refund less service fee and less claims paid for the amount CARS received from the selling dealer for the customer's Service Contract to the lienholder. CARS’ check to the lienholder will be in the amount of $390.03.

CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers; therefore, CARS only receives a set price for each contract sold and any remaining monies owed to the customer are between the customer and the dealer.

As stated above the customer has the option of having CARS pay an additional $78.00 towards the labor cost for the repair of his vehicle or a prorated refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer, which will be directly paid to the lienholder.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through July 31, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason P. *********

General Counsel

2/18/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On November 21, 2015 we purchased a used car from a dealer. We bought a 90 day warranty from CARS Protection Plus. On Dec 30, 2015 engine light came on we went to the dealer. Told us it was nothing; car was old but solid. On Jan 1st, the car lurched forward, the engine light came on, remained on and would not go past forty(40) mph. I then took the car to a mechanic the next day and was diagnosed as the transmission. This information about the incident was reported to CARS services to file a claim. When speaking to a representative, they spoke to me dismissively and rapidly fired questions. They asked about the condition of the car, I mentioned that I heard a noise at the time of purchase , thinking off the top of my head that it could've been the transmission, but not knowing that at the time, but relaying to them what the mechanic told me. They took down the information and I waited to hear from them. I called the mechanic who told me to call them. CARS said they couldn't accept the claim due to a "pre-existing issue with the car at the time of purchase." They said because I had mentioned there was a potential transmission issue meant I had already been aware there was a problem with the car at the time. I contested, that I am not a car expert and had no idea what the problem was only bringing up the possibility of transmission issue because of the information given to me from the mechanic. They have left us with the inability financially to have the car repaired leaving us with no other options and with a car that doesn't run and out of twenty six hundred dollars. The contract expires in Feb 29, 2016

Desired Settlement: Repair the vehicle as promised in the contract.

Business Response:

January 28, 2016

VIA: BBB WEBSITE

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #********

2000 CHRYSLER LHS VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. ****:

1 am in receipt of your letter dated January 25, 2016 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on November 21, 2015 the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle and on that date the vehicle registered 70,108 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on November 30, 2015 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On January 7, 2016 at 2:29 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim on January 7, 2016 at 2:45 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the customer advised CARS that his vehicle began to experience transmission issues during a test drive of his vehicle and that the transmission issues were present on November 21, 2015.

On January 7, 2016 at 4:01 p.m., CARS contacted the repair facility and advised that since the failures were present prior to CARS acceptance of the customer's Service Contract on November 30, 2015, CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs.

On January 7, 2016 at 4:34 p.m., CARS reviewed the reasons CARS could not assist with the transmission claim with the customer and his mother.

By the customer’s signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. Directly above the customer's signature, it states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase." Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED:

 Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. CARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase."

As stated previously, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on January 7, 2016 that his vehicle experienced transmission problems on November 21. 2015 which was prior to CARS acceptance of his Service Contract on November 30. 2015. When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the January 7, 2016 transmission claim because the transmission issues were present prior to CARS’ acceptance with payment of the customer's Service Contract.

For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and we are not able to assist with the January 7, 2016 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect after they are received with payment, processed and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., which may be different than the date of vehicle purchase. The customer's Service Contract was processed and approved on November 30, 2015.

The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through February 29, 2016 or when the odometer on his vehicle registers 74,608 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,

******* ************

2/10/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought a used car this year and because it's a 2001 decided to purchase a warranty on repairs. The dealership offered Cars Protection Plus and I purchased 4 years of it. I paid for the fullest coverage offered. First repair was due to the front axels on the car. They covered nothing and the repair was $1700. The second repairs were to the blower motor and a problem with the internal computer system that made the transmission light come on. First they told the repairman that they would cover the repairs, but changed their mind the next day. I called and complained which did no good. I requested they refund me what I paid for the warranty since they don't cover their portions and I was hung up on. If they're not going to stand by their warranty I want my money back.

Desired Settlement: At this point, since they don't stand behind their warranty I just want my money back. I paid for 4 years....at the very least refund 3 years worth.

Business Response:

VIA: BBB WEBSITE

******** ****

BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********

2001 JEEP GR CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 9, 2015 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On July 23, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on July 24, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

First Claim: On September 1, 2015 at 1:50 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems. CARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On September 1, 2015 at 2:51 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised CARS that the axle tube seal was leaking. The repair facility further advised that there was no internal failure to the front differential and the wheel bearings would have to be replaced because the wheel bearings would break during the replacement of the axle seal.

On September 1, 2015 at 3:45 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the axle tube seal was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the repair of her vehicle. The claim was then closed.

Second Claim: On December 4, 2015 at 9:34 a.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the check engine light was displayed in the customer's vehicle. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear down her vehicle down to the point of component failure pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility to contact us to open a claim when they determined the cause of failure.

Third Claim: On December 8, 2015 at 1:19 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing blower motor resistor and engine computer issues. CARS then advised the repair facility that the blower motor resistor and engine computer were non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s Service Contract. The claim was then closed.

On December 8, 2015 at 1:39 p.m., a CARS customer service representative reviewed the December 8, 2015 claim with the customer. The customer then stated that she wanted a full refund of her Service Contract. She was then transferred to the cancellation department.

On December 8, 2015 at 1:49 p.m. our cancellation department advised the customer that she was not eligible for a refund of her Service Contract pursuant to her Service Contract.

By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) and 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." and "Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component.” Here, the blower motor resistor and engine computer are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service Contract. Therefore, it is the customer is responsibility to repair the blower motor resistor and engine computer.

It is also stated under the Terms and Conditions at 1 (f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component." Here, during the processing of the September 1, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the axle tube seal (non-covered component) was leaking. The repair facility further advised that there was no internal failure to the front differential and the wheel bearings would have to be replaced because they would break during the replacement of the front axle seal. Therefore, the failures to the front differential (covered component) and the wheel bearings (covered component) were not covered because the failures were caused by the axle tube seal (non-covered component). It is the customer's responsibility to repair/replace the axle tube seal and any damage caused by the failure of the axle tube seal.

For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the September 1, 2015 and December 8, 2015 claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

In her consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund of her Service Contract. The customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b): “CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by

providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested.” and "After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated."

Additionally, CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when she purchased the above-referenced vehicle in Michigan stating that she had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in Michigan to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. Therefore, pursuant to her Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through July 24, 2019. Should her vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jason P. ********* General Counsel
JPM/jmm

Attachment



Consumer Response:

Problem:

I had previously filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau over repairs that they state they did not cover on their contract, but I believe it is. In December after this complaint I received a cancellation form from the company with a post it note telling me they could not refund my 4 year payment to them without the form. I completed the form and sent it certified mail. Within 10 days of sending this form I received a letter stating they could not refund my money as it was past the 20 days of the contract. . I would not have cancelled the policy (a 4 year policy) if I had known they would not refund the remainder of my policy money. I am only 6 months into a 4 year contract with them. I would have continued to file a complaint for every repair they denied for the next four years. So now they get to keep $l,000 of a 4 year contract and it's cancelled??? This company should not be in business.

Desired Outcome:

Refund my policy money or reestablish the contract so I can continue to file claims.

Consumer Response:

Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********* and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.


I did not request a cancellation form from CARS Protection.  It was mailed to me with a post it note saying it must be completed
in order to process my refund.  I had hoped the company wanted no more bad publicity and was going to refund my contract.

I would not have cancelled this policy without a refund.  I would have continued to file a complaint for any repairs that were
covered that they refused to cover.  Now they have $1,000 (a 4 year contract) all for nothing!!  I was tricked into mailing
the cancellation form and again would not have done so without a refund.

Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.  Their business practices give warranty programs a very bad name.
Regards,

********* ********

Business Response:

February 1, 2016

VIA: BBB WEBSITE

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2001 JEEP GR CHEROKEE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. ****:

1 am in receipt of your letter dated January 20, 2015 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:

The customer’s service contract application was accepted by CARS on July 24, 2015.

On December 8, 2015 at 1:49 p.m., the customer advised CARS that she would like to a full refund of her Service Contract. CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions, she was not entitled to a refund of her Service Contract. CARS reviewed the cancellation provisions with the customer. CARS provided the customer with a cancellation request form via email.

In CARS' response to the customer’s December 9, 2015 BBB consumer complaint, CARS advised the customer as follows: The customer’s service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b): 'CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested.” and "After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated." Here, the customer cancelled her Service Contract on December 28, 2015 which is greater than twenty (20) days from the date of Service Contract approval date of July 24, 2015.

Additionally, CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. CARS is not directed by any state statute in Michigan to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. Therefore, pursuant to her Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund.

As evidenced in the above paragraphs, CARS advised the customer that there would be no refund for the cancellation of her Service Contract. Nonetheless, CARS received a fully executed cancellation request from the customer for her Service Contract on December 28, 2015.

The customer's Service Contract is now cancelled. The customer's vehicle is not covered under any of CARS' service contracts and no claims will be opened on behalf of her vehicle.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

2/8/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a power train warranty from CARS Protection Plus. This warranty was supposed to cover any vehicle issues that are not wear and tear related. However, CARS Protection Plus refuses to cover the repairs my vehicle needs, even though three diagnostic mechanics have indicated that the problems are power train problems. These repairs should be covered. The agents are CARS Protection Plus are now stating that they refuse to cover the repairs, since they don't consider these issues internal. Each mechanic that has diagnosed the problem states the problems are absolutely internal. I believe I was scammed into purchasing a warranty that covers nothing at all.

Desired Settlement: I would like for my repairs to be covered, as they should be by the warranty I purchased. If not, I would like a full refund of the warranty, since it apparently doesn't cover anything.

Business Response:

BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 FORD E250 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. *****

1 am in receipt of your letter dated January 13, 2015 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 16, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 19, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On January 11, 2016 at 2:41 p.m., the customer advised CARS that his vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS than went over his Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures and was seeking reimbursement for the repair. The customer further advised that calipers had been replaced on January 7, 2016. CARS advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS could not offer any assistance with the caliper replacement since the replacement had not been authorized by CARS.

On January 11, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing tail shaft seal, bushings, and rear caliper issues. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was not at the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility that the seal and bushings were non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract. The repair facility further advised that the calipers were already replaced. The repair facility began to argue that the seal and bushings were part of the transmission. We then advised the repair facility to contact the customer and have him return the vehicle to the repair facility so that a claim could be opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

On January 11, 2016 at 3:49 p.m., the repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing tail shaft seal, bushings, and rear caliper issues. The repair facility advised that the calipers had been replaced on January 7, 2016 and the customer had returned his vehicle to the repair facility to open a claim for the tail shaft seal and bushings.

On January 12, 2015 at 10:28 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist

with the calipers since a claim was not opened and authorized prior to the repair being performed. CARS

further advised that the extension housing on the transmission is a bolt on assembly and not an internal

component to the transmission. CARS explained that the bushing was located on the extension housing;

therefore, it was not covered under the customer’s Service Contract. CARS further advised that seals are

non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract.

On January 12, 2015 at 1:29 p.m., CARS advised the customer that CARS pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle. CARS advised that we could not assist with the calipers since a claim was not opened and authorized prior to the repair being performed. CARS further advised that the extension housing on the transmission is a bolt on assembly and not an internal component to the transmission. CARS explained that the bushing was located on the extension housing; therefore, it was not covered under his Service Contract. CARS further advised that seals are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed.

On January 12, 2015 at 1:31 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he would like a refund of his Service Contract. CARS advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract he is not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract.

By the customer's signature on his Value Limited Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” Here, the housing extension is a bolt on assembly and can be purchased separately from the transmission; therefore, it is not covered under the customer's Service Contract. Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, it is the responsibility of the customer to repair the housing extension/bushing.

The customer's Service Contract also states under "COVERED COMPONENTS: AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION/TRANSFER CASE: Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing...” and "Transmission/transfer case only if damage by a covered component internal to the transmission/transfer case housing.” Here the bushing is located on the back of the housing extension which is a non-lubricated part; therefore, it is not covered under the customer's Service Contract. Additionally, the housing extension can be purchase separately from the transfer case housing; therefore, it is a separate part from the transmission and transfer case housing.

It is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS Seals and gaskets are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." Here, no covered components are being replaced; therefore, the tail shaft seal is not covered under the customer's Service Contract.

It is also stated under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(b): "The repair facility MUST call CARS, at 888-335-6838 to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun.” Here, the customer and the repair facility advised CARS that the calipers were replaced on January 7, 2016, which was prior to a claim being opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle. Therefore, CARS is unable to assist with the replacement of the calipers.

For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the January 11, 2016 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

In his consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund of his Service Contract. The customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (b): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You have the right to cancel the Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your CARS I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid. The Service Contract will not be reinstated after a cancellation is requested." and

“After 20 days, there is no credit for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated.”

Additionally, CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle in New Jersey stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the Service Contract. CARS is not directed by any state statute in New Jersey to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. Therefore, pursuant to his Service Contract the customer is not entitled to a refund.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

The customer's Service Contract expired on January 19, 2016. The customer no longer has any coverage under any of CARS' service contracts and no claims can be opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason P. *********

General Counsel

2/5/2016 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased an Extended Warranty through CARS Protection PLus. A claim was recently submitted to CARS to have the motor replaced on my vehicle. CARS denied the claim because I have custom wheels on the car. CARS previously approved and paid for claims to the vehicle with the same custom wheels on the vehicle then that are on the car now. I feel since this is a major and costly repair they are finding any excuse not to uphold their agreement with the warranty. The repairs that need to be done to the car were not caused by the fact custom wheels are on the car. I feel that have set a presidence by approving and paying for previous claims on the vehicle with the same exact wheels on the car then that are up there now. If custom wheels were a problem why wasnt it brought to my attention previously.

Desired Settlement: I would like for CARS to uphold their end of the agreement and approve and pay for the claim.

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********

2004 CADILLAC CTS

VIN (Last 8): ********

OUR FILE NO.: C-**** **** *** *****


I am in receipt of your letter dated December 28, 2015 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint.

Upon receiving the customer's consumer complaint, CARS attempted to reach the customer directly and yesterday, January 14, 2016, the customer returned our telephone call. The customer was agreeable to CARS offer of resolution to her consumer complaint.

CARS now considers this matter resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason P. *********

General Counsel


1/27/2016 Problems with Product/Service
1/25/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On January 5th, I purchased a new-to-me car from a small auto dealership in *******, Va. I put a $300 down payment on the vehicle to get the alignment fixed and then the next day went through the buying process. In the midst of signing all the papers at the dealership, we purchased a warranty from this company for the Onyx level of protection for $895. I admit it was my fault for not noticing that the price the dealer put down on the warranty purchase line was $300. After reviewing customer complaints through the BBB website, I decided to ask for a refund before the papers even went through on their end. I spoke with Alesha through e-mail, explained my problem, sent her the documents proving the original price of the vehicle ($6995), the bill of sale I took home the first day proving my $300 deposit, and the final bill of sale I took to the bank with the original price of the vehicle plus the warranty ($7900). After the e-mail exchange, I was contacted today saying that they would not refund my total purchase price, only what was listed on the papers, so essentially, I have been screwed out of $500.

Desired Settlement: I just want my full $895 back.

Business Response:

******** ****

BBB of Western Pennsylvania
*** ******* ****** ***** ***
*********** ** *****

RE:          COMPLAINT ID #********

2010 DODGE JOURNEY
VIN (Last 8): ********
OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 15, 2016 and January 20, 2016 enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaints and respond as follows:

On January 21, 2016 CARS telephoned the customer to explain the processing and the amount of her refund.

CARS now considers this matter resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,


Jason P. M********
General Counsel

 

Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

******** ******

1/5/2016 Problems with Product/Service
12/22/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 2004 Cadillac SRX with a Warranty. The vehicle had many issues which did not find out until about a year after the purchase. I took it to the place I purchased it from an they could not fix it. I took the car to the dealer to identify the what was causing the sounds that I was experiencing. The dealer said the car had the following problems in excess of $6k to replace/repair: LWR CONTROL ARMS , TRANSFER CASE , FT COVER LEAK , SEAT SWITCH , PASS REAR WHL BRG , STEER RACK BOOT TORN , TIE ROD , PWR STEER PRESSURE HOSE , HEADLIGHT , ALT BELT TENSIONER , REAR DIFF BUSH , REAR SWAY BAR BUSH After numerous unanswered phone calls by myself and the dealer I finally called and asked for manager at the warranty company to respond to the dealer. It was not until 12/16/15 the adjuster called the dealer. Problem is the adjuster told them that they will not authorize much of the covered issues. They only agreed to: a USED TRANS CASE 720.00 RF HUB 184.72 NON OEN PS HOSE 70.79 -33.00 FLUID 240.00 LABOR OM TRANS CASE NO TEAR DOWN- 1.1 HOUR(66.00)PS HOSE 1.7 102.00 TOTAL ASSIST 6.8 HOUR 408.00 LABOR PARTS AND FLUID 1008.51 CUST PAY TAXES 1416.51 TOTAL ASSIST -100 DED 1316.51 the dealer can not warrant the work on USED parts. Further they say that the used transfer case is sealed so they can not tell if it good or not. If it is not good the warranty company will require it be opened up at my cost to replace it. Additionally are not authorizing fixing the engine oil leak, Steering Rack or Control Arms which are the more serious and safety issues that should be covered.

Desired Settlement: Replacement of the Transfer Case with New or "Refurbished" Transfer case and fixing the engine oil leak, Steering Rack or Control Arms.

Business Response:

December 18, 2015
VIA: SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE
******** ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2004 CADILLAC SRX VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-*****
Dear Ms. *****
I am in receipt of your letter dated December 17, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 15, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on September 23, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract two (2) mechanical claims have been opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

First Claim: On August 31, 2015 at 4:43 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing left window motor, center support bearings, driveshaft, rear axle bushings and air conditioning compressor issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On September 1, 2015 at 9:56 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left window motor for $168.00, the driveshaft for $400.00 and the air conditioner compressor for $295.00. CARS would also assist with fluids needed for the repair in the amount of $22.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 4.5 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $270.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,055.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $170.00 toward labor and $22.00 towards the cost of fluids or pay $1,055.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice.

On September 4, 2015 at 1:16 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to use the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicle. CARS provided the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs on the customer's vehicle.

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, on September 8, 2015, CARS paid the repair facility $1,055.00 via credit card. The claim was then closed.

Second Claim: On November 23, 2015 at 4:21 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing lower control arms, transfer case, rear wheel bearing, steering rack boot, tie rod, power steering pressure hose, alternator belt tensioner, rear differential bushings and sway bar issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On December 1, 2015 at 9:22 a.m., the customer informed CARS that she was moving her vehicle to a repair facility that charged less for labor.

On December 14, 2015 at 11:34 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on the status of her claim. She advised CARS that she had not moved her vehicle from the repair facility that contacted CARS on November 23, 2015. CARS advised the customer that the repair facility must contact CARS with their findings in order for us to move forward with her claim. We further advised that the repair facility should have obtained her permission to tear-down the transfer case to the point of component failure. The customer advised CARS that the repair facility had completed the required tear-down and she would contact them.

On December 16, 2015 at 11:59 a.m., the customer again telephoned CARS to check on the status of her claim. CARS again advised that we have not heard from the repair facility since November 23, 2015.

On December 16, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., since CARS had not heard from the repair facility, CARS telephoned the repair facility to check on the status of the customer’s claim. The repair facility reviewed their findings with CARS. CARS requested that the repair facility send their findings to CARS for review.

On December 16, 2015 at 4:05 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transfer case for $720.00, the right wheel bearing for $184.72 and the power steering hose for $70.79. CARS would also assist with fluids needed or the repair in the amount of $33.00. Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 6.8 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $408.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,316.51, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $308.00 toward labor and $33.00 towards the cost of fluids or pay $1,316.51 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. CARS then advised the repair facility to call us back with the customer’s decision.

On December 17, 2015 at 1032 a.m., a CARS claims manager reviewed the claim with the customer. The claims manager advised that according to the information CARS received from the repair facility the inner tie rod, not the rack had failed. The customer advised that was not what was told to her by the repair facility manager. The customer requested that the repair facility manager be included on the telephone call and CARS agreed. The repair facility manager advised that the boot was torn and the inner tie rod has failed. Our claim manager advised that both of these parts can be replaced/repaired without replacing the rack. The repair facility manager agreed and then advised that he did not know if the rack had failed. Our claim manager suggested that the repair facility could fill the rack with fluid to see if any abnormal noise or hesitation occurred. The repair facility manager agreed that this could be done. CARS claim manager advised that the control arms are not covered components under the customer's Service Contract. The repair facility manager agreed and advised the customer he would talk to her later.

By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, as stated above the customer has the option of taking the cash allowance of $1,316.51 towards the repair of her choice or having CARS supply the parts.

It is stated in the customer's Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of
failure." Here, the control arms, inner tie rod, boot and front timing cover are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract. Therefore, it is the customer is responsibility to repair/replace these parts.

We would like to point out here that the repair facility has not advised CARS that the rack has failed. The inner tie rod and boot have failed on the customer's vehicle and these parts can be purchased and replaced separately from the rack. Therefore, CARS is unable to assist with the replacement of the rack.

The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph l(r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Here, the front timing cover leaking oil is not covered under the customer’s Service Contract.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the inner tie rod and boot had failed and these are separate components because they can be replaced independently from the rack.

CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any further assistance with the November 23, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. If the repair facility has any further information to provide CARS, the repair facility should contact CARS directly.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 23, 2016. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Jason P. ********* General Counsel
JPM/jmm

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,
******* *******

12/22/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: When i purchased my vehicle, i was offered a warranty plan through CARS covering my vehicle using CARS ULTIMATE VALUE and protection plan. After reading through the agreement, i felt the coverage was a great idea and good value for the money. After a year of driving my vehicle without any problems, i had a SERVICE AIR BAG light come on as well as a check engine light. I took my vehicle it to my local ASE certified mechanic for diagnostic and problem solving and he claims that i have a bad FRONT END AIR BAG SENSOR and EVAP CANISTER bad on my vehicle. I gave him my policy number for CARS warranty and asked him to submit the claim before any work was to be completed. After he contacted the company, the claimed that it was not covered under the protection plan. After doing my own research and finding many lawsuits against this company, i decided to contact this company and ask to cancel my contract and recieve my investment back. Company representative claimed i could not cancel my warranty unless it was a total loss.

Desired Settlement: I want to cancel this contract with this company and refund my money. This warranty is absolutely misleading in every way and i should have purchased a warranty from a more reputable company. Total scam in my opinion and i will recommend the dealership selling this product to look for another company to service his customers.

Business Response:

VIA: BBB WEBSITE

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 CHEVY TAHOE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 4, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:             

 

On December 10, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 4, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On December 3, 2015 at 2:11 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the evaporator canister and air bag sensor. During that telephone call, we explained to the repair facility that the components in need of repair were not covered under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, the repairs would be the sole responsibility of the customer.

On that same date at 2:25 p.m., the customer contacted CARS inquiring about his Service Contract coverage. Our customer service department explained to the customer that the evaporator canister and the air bag sensor were non-covered components under his Service Contract. The customer then inquired about the amount of any refund he would receive if he cancelled his Service Contract coverage. The telephone call was then transferred to our Cancellation/Refund Department. During that telephone call, the customer was advised that pursuant to the Cancellation Provisions of his Service Contract, after 20 days of coverage, he would only be available for a refund if his vehicle was declared a total loss or repossessed.

By the customer's signature on his Service Contract he stated that he read understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a and b): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "You have the right to cancel Your Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your Cars I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any  claims paid. After 20 days, there is no refund for early termination except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier, or repossession by the lienholder as stated..." Also below the covered components on the first page of the customer's Service Contract it states: "COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS." Additionally, there is no Kentucky state statute which requires that CARS provide a refund. Here, the customer had service coverage available to him for eleven (11) months in the event that his vehicle experienced a covered component failure pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.

 Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind its original decision and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, no refund is available to the customer. The customer has coverage under his Service Contract through January 4, 2019.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** ********* General Counsel


 

JPM/cll

Attachment


Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. I feel the language in the agreement  can be interpreted in many different ways to the company's favor each and every time. It's also troubling that this company has been in many lawsuits with other customers and the court's have sided with the customers, not the company.  My biggest concern now is that if i have a warranty claim under the provisions of the contract, will this company hold prejudice against me in the future moving foward and deny my warranty claim?


Furthermore, the amount of days to cancel a new warranty is somewhat misleading as well. From my 15 years of experience working in the car business dealing with lenders, alot of times deal are not funded within this time frame so deals are put on hold while waiting to be funded. 
  
For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I would still like a full refund so that i can purchase a warranty that will cover my vehicle through the term of my loan. If this is not possible, i am very hopeful that i never have any serious mechanical problems because i have the feeling my claim will not be covered in the future..

Regards,

***** ********

Business Response:

December 22, 2015
VIA: BBB WEBSITE
RE: COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 CHEVY TAHOE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****
Dear Ms. *****
I am in receipt of the customer's letter to you regarding our response. Although the customer’s claim has been closed by the BBB, CARS would like to assure the customer that moving forward should his vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service Contract. If the failed component is covered under the Service Contract, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.

CARS supports the customer contacting the BBB regarding his concerns and appreciates the opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,

Jason P. *********
 
General Counsel


12/17/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had my vehicle towed using the Roadside assistance the morning of Dec. 10, 2015. Upon arrival at an approved repair facility, my vehicle was immediately diagnosed and the call to the claims department was initiated. At first there was no answer and no way to leave a message. Then the call was answered and the phone call transferred and then dropped. The fifth attempt was met by an out to lunch message. No answer all afternoon and then at 430pm EST., I personally called and the message was that they were closed for the day and that their business hours were until 5pm EST. NOTE that I called at 430 pm EST. And there was no way to leave a message. Absolutely zero of the forwarding options worked. Now I have a vehicle sitting at the shop tore down and they can't repair it and I have no transportation. The repairs needed would have easily been able to be completed today. I am in the process of getting a rental now, which I don't have the money for.

Desired Settlement: I want an truthful explanation of today's lack of customer service. I also want complete reimbursement of the rental and my $100 co-pay waived. I want the repair facility (******** Automotive *** ***** **** ***** *********** ** ***** *************) Authorized to complete all needed repairs and all parts paid for by CARS.

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2000 FORD EXPEDITION VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 10, 2015 enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the difficulties the customer and the repair facility experienced while attempting to reach CARS via telephone on December 10, 2015 to open a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

After receiving your letter, CARS contacted the repair facility and processed the claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. In a goodwill gesture, CARS waived the $100.00 deductible that the customer was responsible to pay pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.

On December 10, 2015 CARS experienced technical difficulties with our telephone system. These technical difficulties affected other businesses in our nearby area as well. These difficulties were beyond our control and we apologize for any inconvenience to the customer and to the repair facility.

After the claim was processed CARS went over the claim with the customer and the waiving of the deductible towards the repair of his vehicle.

CARS considers this matter now resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

**** *****

12/15/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I would like to file a complaint on September 22,2015 I took my 2005 Chevy Impala LS to *************** to get check out the manager ***** ****** told me that the transmission has a Slip 1-2 Shift, Chatters 2-3 Shift, has tcc Chatter, has code 1811 internal, has excessive friction material and metal in pan has internal problem NOTE HAS EXTENDED WARRANTY, BUT MILAGE ON ISSUE IS WRONG, MILAGE MUST BE CORRECTED IN ORDER FOR WARRAATY TO APPLY & ***** also told me to take the to the dealer to have them fax a bill of sale & a car Title them so as I drove to ******** **** ** **** **** SC they told me that they will fax them the information & said that they will call me but never did & ******** **** Never answer the phone as well of September 30, 2015 I talk Mrs. Diane at Cars Protection Plus (on the phone) she got my email on the Issue with the milage on the car but said that I need to go to the ask them to fax the Title & bill of sale to them so I went to the ******** **** in **** **** SC they told me that theyve have already sent those information to them but when I call Mrs.Diane on October 8, 2015 she told me that they still did not get a bill of sale & title then I filed a complint with the BBB in13860 Ballantyne Corp. Pl. Ste. 225 Charlotte NC 28277 (case no.#******) Attn: ****** ********** on October 12,2015 I just want to get my car fixed ASAP Also ***** ****** at *** ************ also filed a claim to Cars Protection Plus as well I would like to know If the dealer fax the car Title & bill of sale to Cars Protection Plus I think that something is wrong if no body got the information at Cars Protection Plus .

Desired Settlement: I just want to get my car fix it cost aroud a thousand dollars which I can not aford that kind of money its not fare for me have struggle in to geeting the car fixed I just want my 2005 Chevy Impala LS fixed thats all.

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 CHEVY IMPALA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 17, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows; According to our records the customer purchased the above referenced vehicle on July 8, 2015, On that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles), The Service Contract Application listed that on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 126.000 miles on the odometer. The customer's Service Contract was then accepted with payment by CARS on July 9, 2015 (See attached "Service Contract").

On August 28, 2015 at 11:33 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that the check engine light was displayed in his vehicle and there may also be transmission issues. CARS then reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures.

On September 22, 2015 at 11:20 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. The repair facility also advised that odometer registered 125.623 miles; which was 377 less miles than the original mileage listed on the Service Contract as the current odometer reading on the date of purchase (July 8, 2015). During that same telephone call, CARS advised the repair facility that we would be unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle, because of the discrepancy in the mileage provided by the selling dealer and the repair facility. We explained to the repair facility that the customer needed to have the selling dealer provide CARS with proof of mileage for his vehicle on the date of purchase. CARS then closed the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

On September 24, 2015 at 1:48 p.m., the selling dealer advised CARS that he would fax documents to correct the customer's mileage; however, CARS has no record of ever receiving information as a result of this telephone conversation.

On September 30, 2015 at 10:21 a.m., CARS left a message for the customer to return our telephone call in response to an online submission from the customer regarding the mileage issue with his Service

vehicle. The selling dealer advised CARS that she would search for the necessary documentation and fax it to CARS. Again, CARS has no record of ever receiving any paperwork as a result of this telephone conversation.

On September 30, 2015 at 4:26 p.m., the customer returned CARS' telephone call. CARS advised that we would need either the title, bill of sale or an odometer statement to correct the mileage on the customer's Service Contract. The customer advised that he did not have any of the required documents in his possession. CARS then referred the customer to the selling dealer and advised that dealer was aware of what documentation was needed for a correction to be made.

On October 7, 2015 at 4:44 p.m., the customer again called to inquire if we received the necessary documentation from the selling dealer. CARS advised the customer that the selling dealer had not provided jjg_with any information regarding the mileage listed on his Service Contract. We again reviewed what documentation was required for CARS to make changes to the mileage listed on the Service Contract. This telephone call was the last communication CARS had with the customer or the selling dealer until we received the above-referenced consumer complaint on November 17, 2015.

On November 17, 2015, CARS telephoned the selling dealer two [2) times to attempt to rectify the customer’s issue with the mileage. The dealer did not return CARS' call.

On November 18, 2015, CARS received an Odometer Disclosure Statement from the selling dealer via email stating that the odometer registered 123,421 miles on the date of purchase (attached). CARS then made the corrections to our records.

On November 18, 2015 at 5:03 p.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility, who had attempted to open a claim on September 22, 2015, to obtain an update on the customer’s vehicle. CARS was advised that the manager of the repair facility would telephone CARS on November 19, 2015.

On November 19, 2015 at 2:13 p.m., CARS again telephoned the previous repair facility to obtain an update on the customer's vehicle. CARS was advised by the manager that there were no 2005 Chevy Impala's there for repair. CARS then closed the claim.

On November 19, 2015, CARS left a voice message advising the customer to have a repair facility open a claim on behalf of his vehicle. We further advised that we would process the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.

By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles), he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. Directly above the customer’s signature the Service Contract states: "ACCEPTANCE TO TERMS: I have read, understand and agree to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions as stated on the front and reverse side of this Service Contract Application. This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this application is received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of purchase. I certify the information above is true and correct, and I will contact CARS if I have not received a CARS LD. card within 15 days. I understand that I am responsible for $100.00 deductible per claim. I acknowledge receipt of my copy of this Service Contract." Here, the odometer reading listed on the Service Contract was inaccurate; therefore, CARS was correct in requesting information from the customer/dealer regarding the true mileage on the customer's vehicle at the time of purchase.

CARS would like to point out here that the having the correct odometer reading on the Service Contract is a requirement by CARS in order for us to make informed decision on component coverage when a claim is opened on behalf of a customer’s vehicle. The listing of the correct mileage is very

Service Contract purchase can be equated to a vehicle's "date of birth” and is used to ensure regular and proper maintenance of a vehicle, such as an oil change, air filter change, tire wear, etc. The wrong mileage listed on the service contract can prevent this type of maintenance which is critical to the long term health and care of a vehicle from being tracked by the customer and CARS. This, of course, is also a critical component to determine the value of a vehicle. Here, the customer signed his Service Contract stating that the above information was true; however, he later informed CARS that the mileage information provided by the selling dealer was in error. Therefore, CARS was correct in not moving forward with the customer’s claim until we were provided documentation from the dealer that an error had been made and were provided with the corrected information.

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers, repair facilities and/or customer, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Here, the dealer listed the current odometer reading on the date of purchase as 126.000 miles. At our request, the dealer provided documentation to CARS on November 18, 2015 stating that the odometer reading at the time of purchase was 123,421 miles.

As stated above the customer needs to have a repair facility open a claim on behalf vehicle as outlined under the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. When a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract, If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

At this time CARS considers the customer's consumer complaint resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
****** ** ********* General Counsel


12/11/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: After only 3 payments on my car the transmission failed. I took the car to * dealership. After a week and a half a decision was finally made by warranty company to fix the car. We opted to pay an additional $1184 in misc. charges and parts covered by warranty and some not covered. We went out of our way to pay what was necessary to assist in the new transmission lasting. However, after 84 miles the used transmission failed. We only drove from the dealership to a high school and called for towing by the dealership who fixed the car in the first place. After another week a transmission was sent to the mechanic. A new transmission is supposed to arrive to my mechanic today. My issue is the warranty company will not pay the towing cost. They also said there was no other or better option for me when I needed it towed. My car barely made it to the parking lot during a snow storm. Was I supposed to park it on the side of the highway during a storm, with 4 kids in my car, 84 miles after I just had it fixed? That seems unsafe doesn't it? Completely unreasonable! Was I supposed to call another tow company? To tow the car to another mechanic and start all over? That doesn't seem reasonable either. To top all of it off the warranty company does not respond in a reasonable time when I call and leave messages. I have to continue to miss work day after day! It has cost me thousands of dollars because I cannot work due to no vehicle again. It has been almost a month since my car first went to the mechanic. Every delay in the process has been because of the warranty company. This has been a headache and stressful situation from day one. I was hoping the warranty company would be reasonable and professional since they say they are, I have not been satisfied yet with their so called warranty. Often times I have had to go above the assigned adjuster because he fails to call me or my mechanic back.Both transmissions are from their parts supplier and we along with my mechanic have had to battle them also. By the time my car is fixed for the second time, I will have lost work for 30 days and not had a car for all of that time. I don't think the amount of towing $435 is too much to ask for considering I did everything I could to make sure the first time it was fixed would work. And I did not do anything to the car for the transmission to fail. Why pay for a warranty that picks and chooses when or how to cover services? When the replaced transmission failed, my car sat untouched with no news from warranty company over Thanksgiving break. My family has had to beg family for rides to holiday parties, grocery stores, school activities,many many more events. This whole experience has set our family back thousands of dollars and it is almost Christmas.

Desired Settlement: Refund me the full amount of towing from my mechanic! I did everything I was supposed to, I think it's only fair the warranty company does the same for me!!

Business Response:

December 2, 2015

RE:         COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 BUICK RENDEZVOUS CX VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 1, 2015 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint regarding reimbursement of her recent towing expenses.

Please note that in the afternoon on December 1, 2015 our Claims Manager reviewed the customer's claim. Subsequently he then contacted the customer and advised that CARS would pay the tow bill in the total amount of $435.00, once the customer provides us with a copy of the tow bill. Therefore, CARS believes that this complaint is now resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,
******* ********

12/4/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a car with a warranty from CARS PROTECTION PLUS and they are unwilling to back it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Desired Settlement: To honor their warranty and take care of the problem and fix the car.

Business Response:

Patricia Cook

BBB of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                  November 16, 2105

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #10951656

2003 AUDIA6 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 16, 2015 enclosing the customer's consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on October 28, 2015 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that date the vehicle registered 108,956 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer's Service Contract was accepted with payment and approved by CARS on November 4, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On November 9, 2015, at 11:10 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim on November 9, 2015 at 1:02 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the customer advised CARS that his vehicle began to experience engine issues on November 1, 2015.

On November 9, 2015 at 2:11 p.m., CARS contacted the repair facility and advised that since the failures were present prior to CARS acceptance of the customer's Service Contract on November 4, 2015, CARS could not offer any assistance with the repairs.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. Directly above the customer's signature, it states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase." Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS.") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. CARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               As stated previously, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on November 9, 2015 that his vehicle experienced engine problems November 1, 2015 which was prior to CARS acceptance of his Service Contract on November 4. 2015. When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer's vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the November 9, 2015 engine claim because the engine issues were present prior to CARS’ acceptance with payment of the customer's Service Contract.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       For all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and we are not able to assist with the November 9, 2015 engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect after they are received with payment, processed and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., which may be different than the date of vehicle purchase. The customer's Service Contract was processed and approved on November 4, 2015.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through February 4, 2016 or when the odometer on his vehicle registers 113,456 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

12/2/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Complaint Details Unavailable
12/1/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On October 9 2015 I purchased a vehicle from a local used car dealership and they included a warranty from CARS, after reading over the CARS documents I decided that I did not want the warranty. I called the company several times because in the paperwork it stated that I would receive my ID card in 7 days after signing for my new car, but after almost 2 weeks I had not received anything from the company, too which I was placed on hold every single time and never answered, so I proceeded to write up a cancellation and send it to the company. In my agreement with CARS it stated that I had 20 days to cancel, which would be October 29 2015, which I sent out on the 20th of October. Today in the mail I received a letter from CARS stating that my refund was denied because my request was made after the 20 day grace period for cancellations and that I could still cancel but they would not refund my $2400.00. how is this possible if I sent in the proper paperwork in the time frame?! This company is nothing but a scam and just out to get people and their money. I don't want their service and don't think because they are slow to process something that I should be forced into having it.

Desired Settlement: I just want my warranty cancelled and a refund of my $2400.00 sent back to my finance company.

Business Response:

COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 FORD F250 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: C*****

Dear Ms. *****

1 am in receipt of your letter dated November 9, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 8, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Onyx Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 9, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

After a management review of the customer's consumer complaint, CARS determined that the customer was entitled to full refund of the amount CARS received for his Service Contract. Attached please find a copy of our check no. ****** which will be mailed to the customer's lienholder.

By Mr. *******' signature on his Service Contract he stated that he read understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained therein. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "You have the right to cancel Your Service Contract up to 20 days from the effective date as stated on Your Cars I.D. card by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund, paid to Your dealer or lienholder, of the amount received by CARS, less any claims paid, by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S.”

Please note that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to selling dealers. Therefore, what Mr. ******* paid for his Service Contract (i.e. $2,400.00) is not what CARS received for the cost of his Service Contract. The amount received by CARS is reflected in the copy of the attached check made out to the customer's lienholder. CARS advised the selling dealer that the customer is eligible for a refund and the selling dealer is responsible for providing the remaining amount to the customer's lienholder (see attached letter).

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our

product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** ********* General Counsel

11/10/2015 Problems with Product/Service
11/5/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: i took my2005 chevy 1500 4wd. pickup to ******** garage on or approx.oct5 the mech had called me and told me what was wrong with my front end icalled Carsprotectionplus I was told that the mech. would have to call them to submit a claim so he did. The mech.called me back and and said he talked to a man named Brian. Brian kept telling the Mech. he wasnt giving him the proper diognostects of the problem with the parts when he tried to over and over it wasent good enough he even asked Brian what more did he want him to send him the old parts Brian declined and kept saying over and over aproper Diog. The mech. called me and said he didnt want to really want to do it anymore he had to much time in it.so i called brain being a mech.myself for 28 years whatever myself or the mech.told Brian it wasnt good enough he still refuses to honor the claim I paid 1500 dollars for this insurance i have nobody to help me becauce i cant afford an attorney

Desired Settlement: Pay for repairs or refund me for my policy .

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 CHEVY 1500 VIN (Last 8): 51329086 OUR FILE NO.: C-****

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On June 5, 2014, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on June 6, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract").

On October 8, 2015 at 1:41 p.m., a mechanical claim was opened by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle. The October 8, 2015 claim is the reason for the customer's complaint. CARS management has reviewed the mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer. At this time, CARS is willing to pay the total amount of $937.43, which is the repair facility's cost to repair the customer’s vehicle. Attached please find a copy of the repair facility's invoice for the repair. CARS has also waived the $100.00 deductible. Upon CARS receipt of the final invoice indicating that the repairs are completed and the repair facility has issued a warranty on parts and labor, CARS will pay the claim in the amount of $937.43.

I hope that by CARS actions in covering the complete repairs on the customer's vehicle, he finds that CARS' response is satisfactory and the BBB closes this complaint as resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

 

 

10/21/2015 Problems with Product/Service
10/14/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues
10/13/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This complaint deals with A used vehicle purchased at a dealership. I bought the extended warranty, thru the dealership, with the warranty company called Cars Protection out of **. I have the value plus plan which covers almost everything there is to cover. My transmission failed on 9/11/15. I took it to a transmission shop and had them file the claim with Cars Protection. I found out on 9/16 that a portion of the cost will be covered by the warranty but not all of it. Which is my first complaint. How exactly does only a portion of this get covered and I still have to come up with $600? Secondly, the policy states that for every 8 hours OF WORK that the vehicle needs I am eligible for a rental car. Im told the "allotted" time for this repair is 6 hours, and therefore don't qualify for a rental, yet Cars Protection will not have the part available to my repair shop for 5-7 days! Wouldn't the reasonable person interpret repair time as the amount of DAYS to fix the vehicle rather than the exact amount of time that a mechanic will spend on the vehicle?

Desired Settlement: Cover the whole cost of the repair and provide a vehicle while my vehicle is out of service. I spoke to the repair shop. If I was paying "retail" to have the car fixed, it would be ready in 1 day. Since Cars Protection needs to supply the used part to put in, it will now take 5-7 days for the part to arrive. This is ludicrous and unacceptable.

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 FORD E250 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 16, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 1, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 18, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On September 14, 2015 at 3:45 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was experiencing transmission issues with his vehicle. CARS then reviewed our claims procedures and his Service Contract coverage with the customer.

On September 14, 2015 at 3:56 p.m., CARS again reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage with him.

On September 14, 2015 at 4:08 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On September 14, 2015 at 4:41 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was no fourth gear in the customer's vehicle. The repair facility advised that there were no other concerns. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. CARS further advised the repair facility that any repairs done without prior authorization would be denied by CARS. CARS advised the repair facility to get back to CARS with their findings.

On September 16, 2015 the repair facility advised CARS in writing on their estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle that the support snap ring failed causing damage to the rev drum.

On September 16, 2015 at 10:49 a.m., we went over the amount CARS could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the transmission for $820.00. CARS was able to assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $84.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 5.2 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $312.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,116.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $212.00 towards labor or pay $1,116.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We also went over the shipping details with the repair facility. We advised the repair facility to telephone CARS with the customer’s decision.

On September 16, 2015 at 11:22 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to have CARS ship the transmission to the repair facility. CARS then advised that we would telephone the repair facility with an authorization number and estimated time of arrival.

On September 16, 2015 at 11:23 a.m., the claim adjustor advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, he was not eligible for rental benefits.

On September 16, 2015 at 11:34 a.m., a claims manager reviewed the customer’s rental benefits with him pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.

On September 16, 2015 at 3:32 p.m., CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. CARS further advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival date of the transmission was September 24, 2015 or September 25, 2015.

By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

The rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract state: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Here, the September 14, 2015 transmission claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle was authorized for 5.2 hours of labor to replace the transmission based on Mitchell OnDemand labor guide; therefore, the customer is not entitled to rental benefits under his Service Contract.

The customer's Service Contract states at 2 (m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have.” As you can see from the above paragraphs, CARS processed the transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle within two (2) business days and the shipping details were provided to the repair facilities that the customer could make a choice regarding his options for assistance from CARS.

It states on the Service Contract under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” We would like to point out here that when the September 14, 2015 claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the repair facility's labor rate was $85.00 dollars per hour. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 5.2 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. CARS authorized the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the service contract and the customer is responsible for the difference.

CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

For all of the reasons stated in the above paragraphs, CARS stands behind our decision regarding the September 14, 2015 transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle and is unable to offer any further assistance with the claim.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through November 18, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract.  

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

 

10/1/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought the service contract from this company when I purchased my vehicle in 2013. Initially I had refused to purchase the contract but the auto salesman told me they were a good company and I paid over $2,000 for the contract. The first time my vehicle broke down they told me that they buy the part and deliver to the shop where the vehicle is to be repaired. That meant that it took a whole working week for my vehicle to be repaired and before 3 days are over you cannot get a rental. The part that they sent was lasted about two weeks after being repaired and they insisted on sending another part. Again I could not rent a vehicle until after 3 days and they refused to pay for the labor charges to fix the car even though they are the ones that provided the part. The second time my vehicle broke down it needed a part in the "valve body" but they declined to pay for the part because it could be sold separately yet they cover the whole unit where the part is located. The valve body is covered under the automatic transmission, Recently the compressor for my vehicle broke. First they did not send the part as they had insisted before and authorized the shop to buy the part but the amount they approved was not even sufficient to buy the part. The refused to pay for the Freon even though their contract clearly states that "Freon is covered with a covered repair" and refused to pay for the full hours billed.

Desired Settlement: I would like this company to reimburse me the loss of earnings due to my not going to work and not being able to rent a vehicle until after three days even though the contract does not say so. This I was told by the first company representative that I spoke to. I would also like a reimbursement for the amount of money that I havce sent for repairs that they should have covered in full.

Business Response:

September 9, 2015

VIA:    SUBMITTED TO BBB WEBSITE

******** ****

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 MERCEDES GL450 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 1, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 18, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 19, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”).

First Claim: On November 18, 2013 at 10:11 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing left air spring issues. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount CARS could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the left rear air spring for $155.07. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.6 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $96.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $155.07 and we could supply the part as stated above; however, we would not be able to assist with the labor charges since the cost of labor was lower than the $100.00 deductible or CARS could pay $155.07 towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

On November 18, 2013 at 10:43 a.m., the repair facility advised us to ship the supplied part for the repair of the customer’s vehicle. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle. On that same day, November 11, 2013, CARS advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival time for the supplied was November 19, 2013.

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, on November 26, 2013, CARS paid our supplier a total of $155.07 via credit card. The claim was then closed.

Second Claim: On December 2, 2013 at 11:36 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing left rear air bag issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On December 2, 2013 at 12:02 p.m., the repair facility advised that a plastic clip where the air line connects was slipping out of the left side of the air bag. CARS advised that we would call our supplier to ship a replacement part to the repair facility.

On December 2, 2013 at 3:46 p.m., our supplier advised CARS that they felt that the air bag was improperly installed; however, they would ship a new air bag to the repair facility. On that same day, December 2, 2013, CARS gave the repair facility an authorization number to the repair facility for 1.6 hours to reinstall the air bag in the amount of $96.00. CARS advised the repair facility that the air bag should arrive by December 3, 2013.

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, on December 18, 2013, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $96.00 via credit card. The claim was then closed.

Third Claim: On January 15, 2014 at 4:50 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing level control compressor and rear right air spring issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On January 15, 2014 at 5:12 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that rear right air bag was leaking air and burnt the compressor. The repair facility further advised CARS to supply the air spring. CARS advised the repair facility that we would go over the amount CARS could assist with them on January 16, 2014.  The repair facility then advised CARS that they would like us to ship the supplied air spring.

On January 16, 2014 at 9:05 a.m., we advised the repair facility that since they instructed CARS to supply the air spring to them, CARS was unable to assist with the labor costs for the repair because the labor cost was less than the deductible. On that same day, January 16, 2014, at 11:25 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival date of the supplied part was January 21, 2014.

Fourth Claim: On May 28, 2015 at 3:15 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission conductor plate issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On May 28, 2015 at 4:36 p.m., CARS left a voice message for the repair facility to telephone us.

On May 29, 2015 at 9:10 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the transmission conductor plate had failed. CARS advised the repair facility that the transmission conductor plate is a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract. The transmission conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission. The repair facility advised that they would tell the customer.

Fifth Claim: On July 30, 2015 at 9:55 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioner and serpentine belt issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On July 30, 2015 at 10:39 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the air conditioner compressor had failed. The repair facility further advised that the air conditioner needed routine service. We then went over our claim procedures.

On July 30, 2015 at 10:44 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the compressor for $369.99. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $120.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $389.99, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $389.99 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice.

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, on August 12, 2015 CARS paid the repair facility a total of $389.99 via credit card. The claim was then closed.

By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the her Service Contract. The

customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. CARS went over the options of having the parts shipped to the repair facility or giving a cash allowance towards the customer’s choice of repair with the repair facility on every claim that CARS offered assistance pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, the air springs that were supplied to the repair facility during the November 18, 2013, December 2, 2013 and January 15, 2014 claims were new aftermarket air springs (see attached).

The rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract state: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Here, none of the claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, were authorized for eight hours of labor to repair or replace a covered component based on Mitchell OnDemand labor guide; therefore, the customer was not entitled to rental benefits under her Service Contract.

The customer's Service Contract states at 2 (m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." As you can see from the above paragraphs, CARS processed the claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle within one (1) to (2) business days and estimated shipping times were provided to the customer so that she could make a choice regarding her options for assistance from CARS.

It is also stated in the Service Contract and at Paragraph 1 (a): “COVERED COMPONENTS: "COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” The transmission conductor plate and the valve body are two (2) separate components and can be repaired/replaced independently of each other. As stated above, the transmission conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission. The transmission conductor plate is not listed under the covered components pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of your Service Contract.

It states on the Service Contract under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” We would like to point out here that when the July 30, 2015 claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the repair facility's labor rate was $80.00 dollars per hour. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. CARS authorized the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the service contract and the customer is responsible for the difference.

CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

After review of the claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, it came to CARS attention that the customer is correct in that CARS should have assisted with the Freon replacement during the processing of the July 30, 2015 mechanical claim. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS has attached a copy of the check, we have sent to the customer for the assistance towards the Freon and fluid replacement in the amount of $49.95.

For all of the reasons stated in the above paragraphs, CARS stands behind our decisions regarding the claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle and is unable to offer any further assistance with the claims made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

The customer's vehicle has service coverage through February 19, 2017. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                                                               Sincerely,

                                                               Jason ** *********

                                                               General Counsel


9/22/2015 Problems with Product/Service
9/21/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I called in a needed repair to the warranty hotline Friday around 5;45. This was after the company had closed. I left a message stating I needed to have a repair done to my vehicle in order to transport my son to College on Sunday and needed to let them know where the vehicle was at. MY vehicle was repaired and the parts were saved to put the claim in once I received a return call. I received a return call Tuesday at approximately 9:30 am. I was informed that the parts were covered but that because I went ahead and fixed it that the repair did not qualify. I in no way prejudiced the rights of CARS to inspect the vehicle or damaged parts. The fact that CARS was not open to accept my claim prejudiced my rights to effectively have the repair completed. Therefore I am out $310.00 because of CARS poor customer service practices.

Desired Settlement: I expect CARS to revisit this as they were closed. I expect to provide the vehicle for inspection and the parts and expect payment less my $100 ded

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2009 FORD EXPEDITION

VIN (Last 8): ********

OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 9, 2015, enclosing the above referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: CARS contacted the customer on September 15, 2015 to request that he provide an invoice from the repair facility.

On September 16, 2015, after the customer provided the invoice for the repair of his vehicle to CARS and after a management review of the customer's consumer complaint, CARS advised the customer that CARS would pay $190.88 towards the repair of his vehicle. The customer has agreed to this amount. Enclosed please find a copy of check no. ****** in the amount of $190.88 made payable to the customer.

CARS considers this matter to be resolved.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%, If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

**** *****

9/14/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My policy on my 2008 VW BEETLE, was canceled because the credit card on file declined payment for renewal. I received notification of this in a letter dated 8/18/2015. I contacted CARS immediately on Monday, 8/23/2015 to discuss this issue. I informed Allison that the reason was due to the fraudulent use of my credit card and that I could offer proof of the fraud through my bank's Fraud Services Department. I was informed that I had no recourse per the contract I signed. I stated my dissatisfaction and was transferred to Tiffany and subsequently to Rick. I remain dissatisfied because I was refused contact with an owner, VP, or President to discuss my issue with their unfair handling of my specific issue. I was refused this and Rick refused to take a message for callback by any of the above. I feel this business practice is a very poor way to handle customers. I want their owner to know how their employees are doing business for them. At this time I am without the coverage I feel I need.

Desired Settlement: Contact from owner or President of company plus possible reinstatement of the policy.

Business Response:

COMPLAINT ID #********

2008 VW BEETLE VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 24, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: After a management review of the customer’s consumer complaint, CARS has provided the customer with the name of a dealer near her residence who will provide an inspection to her vehicle at no cost to her. After the inspection of the customer's vehicle, the selling dealer will submit an Independent Service Contract (Recurring Payment) application and payment authorization form with one (1) month payment provided by the customer to CARS.

CARS considers this matter to be resolved.

 

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

                                                                                           Sincerely,

  Jason ** *********

  General Counsel

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

**** *******

9/4/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a extended warranty from Cars Protection Plus Feb/Mar 2015. First I had to call and request my ID Cards. I have had to use this warranty twice. Three times was attempted, but after the first claim I just paid for the repair out of pocket myself the second time. Each time I have been giving the run around. The first time my car was the repair facility at least 5 days longer because the company never sent the part for the repair. I ended up paying more for the repair because of this. Fast Forward to August 6 2015. I started a claim and was given a claims adjuster - Tom Extension **** Who is Rude by the way. I called to follow up because from the previous event I wanted to make sure my part was sent. I was told indeed it was sent. I am stranded in ******* ** waiting for this repair to be completed. As of today 8/13/2015. The dealership is still waiting on the part! When I called 8/11/2015 to get a tracking # so we can track the package. Tom finally returned my call after several hours and left a voicemail that my part was sent NORTH and the dealership would have my part tomorrow (8/12/2015). Now if it was sent NORTH (and where NORTH?) how would it turn around in a day and make it SOUTH where my car has been sitting waiting for service? Mind you Tom would not take the address to the repair shop from me - I had to make yet another call back to the repair shop and have then make yet another call to him. So how did he send it NORTH???? On the voice message Tom gave me a tracking number, but didn't tell me the carrier. I tried to track it on line thru ****** **** *** *** ****. The # ****************** was rejected by each company's tracking system. I listened to the voice message twice to make sure I had it correctly. I did. Now either this information was misspoken by Tom or it was a way to put me off. I have yet again left a voicemail for Tom to call me back. I called 8/12/2015 no return call and now waiting from this morning's call 8/13/2015. 95% of the time I have been sent a claim adjuster's voicemail. The one time I did get Tom by being directly transferred - he answered the phone put me on hold and then when the phone looped backed for him, he let it ring more than 15 times. The initial contact person(s) that answers the phone is not friendly. Each time I have started a claim (while at the repair facility) I have had to wait for an adjuster to call the shop back to tell them how much they will cover. Which the first time took over 40 mins. The second time was 45 mins and this time I just told the shop to call when they found out something. So my problem is two fold: A) Send the dealership the part ASAP B) Provide better customer service

Desired Settlement: I need some concrete information as to when this part will be sent to the dealership. Also I would like to hear some better customer service skills being used if I ever have to call this company again.

Business Response:

COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 ******** ******* VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 13, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:     According to our records, the customer purchased the above-

referenced vehicle on February 5, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 6, 2015 (See attached Service Contract).

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract three (3) claims have been opened as follows:

First Claim:       On April 28, 2015, at 9:03 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair

facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing radiator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On April 28, 2015, at 9:14 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the radiator was leaking fluid. We then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the radiator for $138.79. We could assist with the fluids for the repair in the amount of $14.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.0 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $210.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $262.79, and we could supply the parts as stated above a pay $110.00 towards labor and $14.00 towards fluids or pay $262.79 towards the repair of the customer's choice.

On April 28, 2015, at 9:49 a.m., the customer called CARS to go over his Service Contract because he was not aware that he had a $100.00 deductible. We then went over the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. We then went over his options for CARS' assistance with the radiator claim. The customer advised that he may want to have the radiator shipped.

On April 29, 2015, at 9:42 a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to inquire if the customer had made a decision regarding our assistance with the repair of his radiator. The repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was being towed out of the repair facility as we spoke. CARS then advised the repair facility that a new claim must be opened if the vehicle returned to the repair facility for the radiator repair.

Five days later, on May 4, 2015 at 10:56 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was not towed from the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted CARS to supply the radiator for the repair of his vehicle.

On May 4, 2015 at 11:17 a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS to advise that the customer decided to use CARS' allowance because he did not want to wait for the supplied part. We then gave an authorization number for the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on May 5, 2015 CARS paid the repair facility a total of $262.79 via credit card. The claim was then closed.

Second Claim: On June 12, 2015, at 9:29 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear control arms, rear shocks, rear tow link, rear sway bar link, left front wheel bearing, tie rod, valve cover gasket and alignment issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On June 12, 2015, at 9:50 a.m., pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, we then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the left front wheel bearing for $132.31. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.1 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $109.31, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however we would be unable to assist with the labor charges since the cost of labor was less than the deductible, or pay $109.31 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of his choice.

On June 12, 2015, at 10:32 a.m., CARS then gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle. We advised that the authorization number was good for 180 days. The repair facility has not yet submitted an invoice for payment to CARS.

Third Claim: On August 5, 2015, at 4:43 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing coil pack issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On August 5, 2015, at 5:05 p.m., pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, we then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply front coil for $188.50. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take .5 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $70.00 per hour for labor. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $123.50, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however we would be unable to assist with the labor charges since the cost of labor was less than the deductible, or pay $123.50 towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

On August 6, 2015, at 3:49 p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS with their address so that CARS could supply the part as stated above. The supplied part left our suppliers warehouse on August 7, 2015.

On August 11, 2015, at 2:28 p.m., CARS telephoned our supplier for shipping information on the front coil since the repair facility had not yet received the part. We then left a message with the tracking information for the customer.

On August 13, 2015 at 2:28 p.m., after receiving the customer's consumer compliant, CARS advised the repair facility that the tracking number shows the supplied part to be in the shipper’s warehouse with no estimated time of arrival. Therefore, CARS will pay the repair facility to use their part and waive the $100.00 deductible. CARS advised that the total allowance for the claim is now $345.00. CARS then reviewed our billing procedures.

As of today, August 17, 2015, CARS has not received the invoice from the repair facility for the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.

By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, during the processing of the June 12, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, the rear control arms, rear shocks, rear tow link, rear sway bar link, tie rod, and valve cover gasket are not listed for coverage. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to repair the non-covered covered components.

It is stated in the customer's Service Contract under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 2 (k): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." During the processing of the April 28, 2015 the customer advised CARS that he was unaware of the $100.00 deductible per claim. CARS did waive the $100.00 deductible for the customer during the processing of the August 5, 2015 coil pack claim due to the delay of the repair facility receiving the part.

It is stated in the customer’s Service Contract under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(a) and 3(e): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a repair facility. within the continental United States, open to the public during normal business hours and capable to perform tear-down to the point of: determine the cause and extent of damage, and rebuild the component if necessary if CARS deems necessary. The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until all repairs are complete.” In the customer's consumer complaint, the customer states that during the processing of the April 28, 2015 claim his vehicle was in the repair facility five (5) days longer than necessary because CARS did not sent the part. As stated above in the summary of the April 28, 2015 claim, when CARS telephoned the repair facility on April 29, 2015 to obtain the customer’s decision, we were advised that the customer's vehicle was being towed from the repair facility. We then advised the repair facility that the claim was now closed and a new claim would have to be opened if the customer returned his vehicle for repairs. It wasn't until May 4, 2015 that the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle had not been towed from the repair facility and the customer would like the cash allowance. At that time CARS immediately issued an authorization number for the repair of the customer's vehicle. CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facility and here we were given the wrong information from the repair facility which caused the delay in the processing of the customer's mechanical claim.

We would like to point out here that the first claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle was processed in one (1) day by CARS; however, we were waiting on the customer’s decision and then given the wrong information by the repair facility chosen by the customer. The second claim was processed in one (1) day. Unfortunately, although CARS and our supplier fulfilled their responsibility, the shipper left the package containing the supplied part in a warehouse. When made aware of the issues, CARS management waived the $100.00 deductible for the customer in a goodwill gesture and authorized the repair facility to use their part for the repair of the customer's vehicle.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer’s Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through February 6, 2016. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

8/31/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Followed all instructions of service agreement, but repairs denied

Desired Settlement: Honor service agreement

Business Response:

August 12, 2015
VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH BBB WEBSITE

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********

2003 **** ******* VIN (Last *** ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records on July 20, 2015, after CARS received the transfer of ownership and payment for the transfer, a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) was transferred to the customer by the original purchaser of the Service Contract (See attached "Service Contract”).

On August 7, 2015, at 1:41 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential and tie rod issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On August 7, 2015, at 2:01 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that a growling noise was coming from the rear differential and fluid had leaked from the pinion seal. The repair facility further advised that the cause of failure was the pinion seal. The repair facility was to fax an estimate with the cause of failure to CARS. However, the faxed estimate did not have a cause of failure to the customer's vehicle listed.

On August 7, 2015 at 4:04 p.m., in a recorded call the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was the pinion seal.

On August 7, 2015 at 4:12 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract coverage, CARS was unable to assist with the repair to the customer's vehicle because the pinion seal is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.

By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE
COMPONENTS.” and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) and 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." and
"Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component." Here, the pinion seal is not listed for coverage. The pinion (non-covered component) caused damage to the rear differential (covered component): therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to repair the pinion seal and any damage caused by the pinion seal.

The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." The pinion seal leak caused the damage to the rear differential.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

For these reasons, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the August 7, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 12, 2015. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, CARS will pay accordingly. 

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

*******
Attachment 

8/26/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I took my *** **** to ** Automotive Repair to inspect my vehicle. The shop got in touch with the Insurance I had purchased named Cars Protection Plus. They checked it then called them. They found two codes with their computerized machine which they use to diagnose what is wrong with the vehicle. However Cars Protection Plus said that they had to tear down the motor and after they would send and adjuster to look at the engine. The same day within a couple of hours they denied the claim without even inspecting the engine. The parts that my vehicle needs are covered. When checking BBB website they are notorious for denying such claims. Please, help me to get this matter resolved Thank you

Desired Settlement: That they pay the claim, since it is covered.

Business Response:

August 19, 2015

VIA:    ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH BBB WEBSITE

******** ****

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 *** **** VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 19, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on June 12, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on July 1, 2015 (See attached Service Contract).

On July 27, 2015, at 4:11 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing cylinder head and air pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On July 27, 2015, at 4:43 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was smoke from the tailpipe and leaks from the valve cover gasket. CARS again went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's authorization to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure and to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Condition of his Service Contract.

Fourteen (14) days later, on August 10, 2015, at 11:23 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was smoking. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle had not been touched by the repair facility because the customer advised that he would not pay for the tear-down charges. CARS explained that we needed to know what had failed on the customer's vehicle in order to move forward with the claim. The repair facility's contact person translated for the mechanic and advised that the mechanic was not sure if the valve seals and/or valve guides had failed. CARS again explained that we needed to confirm the cause of failure to determine coverage under the customer's Service Contract. The repair facility advised that they would have the customer call CARS.

On August 10, 2015, at 3:29 p.m., a claims manager returned a telephone call to the customer's mother who advised CARS that she wants to make sure CARS will pay for the repair of her son's vehicle prior to authorizing tear-down. CARS advised her that we cannot guarantee anything other than CARS will proceed with the claim according to the Terms and Conditions of her son's Service Contract. CARS further advised that we cannot move forward with the claim until it is verified that a covered component under her son’s Service Contract has failed.

On August 12, 2015, at 2:53 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cylinder heads were off and the valve stem seals were the only component needed to repair the customer's vehicle.

On August 13, 2015, at 4:06 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, specifically, valve seals are non-covered components.

After a management review of the July 27, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle as follows: We could supply the head gasket set for $194.50, the upper intake set for $314.21 and the head bolts for $60.54. ProDemand labor guide stated that decking and the repair should take 36.0 hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered is $2,160.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim after the deductible was applied is $2,629.25, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $2,060.00 towards decking and labor or pay $2,629.25 towards the repair of the customer's choice.

The repair facility telephone must telephone CARS with the customer's decision prior to any repairs being done to the customer's vehicle.

By his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage and You are responsible for all charges." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.

The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph 2 (k): "CARS will arrange for payment of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." The customer is responsible for $100.00 of the authorized amount for the repair of his vehicle.

It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

If the Service Contract holder has any questions, CARS requests that the customer calls CARS directly.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

 

*******

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that after reviewing the two propositions Cars Plus has propose, I am willing to accept the second option of taking the cash option  of $ 2,629.25 . I am also asking if Cars Plus would contact ** Automotive Repair in order for them to start working on my vehicle. 

Thank you,

*********** *******

8/25/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Warranty company cancelled contract and failed to pay out on repair bill claim of 7500.00 (for replacement of vehicle engine)stating that I modified vehicle because of aftermarket wheels.

Desired Settlement: For Cars Protection Plus to pay the full amount of claim of $7475.00 and to no longer be able to sell their protects in the state of *********

Business Response:

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #********

2004 ***** ******* VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of the customer letter dated August 20, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 20, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on April 25, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

On July 7, 2015 at 11:41 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

On July 7, 2015 at 1:25 p.m., the customer advised CARS that the customer's vehicle made a quick hesitation and then a noise while driving with cruise control on at seventy (70) miles per hour. The customer further advised that the customer then saw blue smoke from the rear of the customer’s vehicle and when the customer pulled over the customer observed oil dripping on the right side of the customer’s vehicle. The customer advised CARS that the customer would have the customer's repair facility fax maintenance records for the customer's vehicle to CARS.

On July 7, 2015 at 1:48 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was a broken rod in the engine and a hole in the block. The repair facility advised CARS that there were no modifications to the customer’s vehicle. CARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to pull the spark plug on the cylinder that failed to check for coolant or water getting into the cylinder.

On July 8, 2015 at 9:58 a.m., CARS requested that the repair facility obtain the customer's authorization to tear down the customer's vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the customer were responsible for all costs related to the tear down/diagnostics to the customer's vehicle per the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. We again reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Eight days later, on July 16, 2015 at 9:44 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure to the customer's vehicle was that the head gasket was breached between cylinders 2 and 4 which caused the engine to hydro lock. The repair facility advised that they would send photographs to CARS.

On July 16, 2015 at 10:43 a.m., after review of the photographs sent by the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer's vehicle was necessary to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.

The independent inspection occurred the very next day on July 17, 2015. The independent inspector found the customer’s vehicle to have oversize wheels and oversize tires. After management review of the independent inspection, CARS determined that the customer's Service Contract was now cancelled and CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle due to the alterations/modification to the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Term and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

On July 20, 2015 at 10:30 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer's Service Contract was cancelled and CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed by CARS.

On July 23, 2015 at 1:28 p.m., in a recorded telephone call with CARS the customer advised that the wheels were changed for aesthetics not performance.

On July 28, 2015, CARS sent the attached letter to the customer advising him of CARS' decision and the cancellation of his Service Contract coverage regarding his July 7, 2015 engine claim.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Ultimate Value Service Contract the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(d): COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer's specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed.”

The customer's service contract also states at Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the service contract." and "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS."

On July 7, 2015, the repair facility advised CARS that there were no modifications to the customer's vehicle; however, in a recorded telephone call on July 13, 2015 the customer advised CARS that the wheels on the customer's vehicle were changed for aesthetics. In addition, the independent inspector found the wheels/tires on the customer's vehicle to be modified; therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract CARS cancelled the customer's Service Contract for modifications/alterations of the wheel/tire size. The alterations/modifications of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. The alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle. Here, if Garrett had advised CARS of the oversize wheels and oversize tires on the customer’s vehicle, CARS would have cancelled the customer’s Service Contract immediately and not moved forward with the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

It is also stated in our cancellation policies for altered/modified vehicles are clearly stated at Paragraph 5 (c):        "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: If a vehicle is altered or

modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued." As stated in the Terms and Conditions of the service contract, the customer is not entitled to a refund of the customer's Service Contract.

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facilities, independent inspections and customers since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service immediately. The customer’s Service Contract is void due to the alterations/modifications; therefore, the customer no longer has service coverage under any of CARS service contracts.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If the customer has any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                                                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                                                   Jason * *********

                                                                                                   General Counsel 


Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,
***** *****

8/20/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On June 24, 2015 CARS received the cause of failure for my vehicle which has a contract through CARS for extended warranty service. The authorized service center informed CARS the #5 cylinder had severe scaring on the cylinder walls, and had a camshaft oiling issue and recommended an remanufactured engine replacement. The engine failure was due to a manufacturer defect not lack of maintenance or customer abuse. Once I received the diagnosis from the service center and they informed me CARS suggested installing a used engine with approximately 163,000 miles. I called CARS and spoke with Rick and inquired specific details of the suggested engine. He declined to give me any detailed information such as: VECI label number, what supplier they purchased the engine from, etc. At this point CARS gave me the option to take $2,636 for the complete repair or they could send a used engine and pay $788.90 for labor and fluids. Assuming the replacement engine would be a suitable fit and repair I told CARS to go ahead and send the engine to the service center. On July 7, 2015 the replacement engine arrived at the service center. My mechanic advised me that he did not feel comfortable installing the engine in my truck. The next he the service center advised CARS of the possible engine problems and failures from using a salvaged engine. The mechanic requested they warranty a remanufactured engine to complete the repair and CARS denied his request. At this point I realize the engine is not used but salvaged and came from a junkyard in *********** *************. The majority of the parts that would be installed in my truck were completely rusted along with other mechanical issues. I then called CARS and asked them to provide the number on the VECI label off the engine to be 100 % sure the replacement engine was the same engine family as my old engine. After 48 hours CARS could not and would not provide any information I requested regarding the replacement engine. So it was unknown if this engine was the correct replacement and if it meet EPA requirements. Due to CARS failing to provide the imperative specific information I told them to send the engine back to the junkyard. CARS service contract terms and conditions states they have the right to supply used parts but it clearly does not state they can use salvaged engines. I then sent a letter to CARS general consul to try and resolve this repair matter but was unsuccessful. CARS stated they would pay me $2,636 for the complete repair but this is unacceptable seeing as they paid $2,160 for the salvaged engine and were willing to pay $788.90 for labor and fluids. Both combined equal a total of $2,948.90. I'm not asking for a new engine to be installed in my truck but a remanufactured engine is at the least $3,500 just for the engine and has a 4 year warranty. It takes 21 hours of labor for the mechanic to install the new engine but CARS is only willing to cover 12.1 hours.

Desired Settlement: I feel CARS should honor the warranty contract I paid for by paying for a remanufactured engine and 21 hours of labor. This is the reason I purchased an extended warranty so I would have coverage if a mechanical problem occurred. Since the failure was no fault of mine I feel CARS should pay for the repair. I the remanufactured engine with it's warranty was installed CARS would not have to worry about labor or parts if something failed because it has a 4 year warranty.

Business Response:

VIA:    ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH BBB WEBSITE

******** ****

RE:      COMPLAINT ID #********

2004 **** **** VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.* ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 6, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:     According to our records, the customer purchased the above-

referenced vehicle on April 19, 2013. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 2, 2013.

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract, three (3) claims have been opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle as follows:

First Claim: On October 13, 2013 at 11:09 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing timing solenoid issues. We then advised the repair facility that the timing solenoid is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract coverage; therefore, we were unable to assist with the repair of her vehicle.

Second Claim: On October 28, 2013 at 9:47 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing timing chain issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the timing set for $155.79, the timing gasket for $39.79, the valve gasket for $49.79, the oil pan gasket for $19.76. We could also authorize $41.50 towards fluids for the repair. Mitchell Demand labor guide stated that the repair should take 11.3 hours to complete and the repair facility’s labor rate was $59.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $678.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $982.63, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $578.00 towards labor and $41.50 towards fluids for the repair or pay $882.63 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to the take the cash allowance.

On November 8, 2013, CARS paid $882.63 via credit card to the repair facility pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim was then closed.

Third Claim: On June 1, 2015 at 2:18 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On June 1, 2015 at 3:03 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to teardown her vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the cost of teardown/diagnostics were the responsibility of the customer per her Service Contract.

During the processing of the claim the repair facility advised CARS that the oil passages were restricted with hard carbon and the timing chain had made contact with the timing cover. The repair facility further advised that the #5 cylinder wall was heavily scoured.

On June 24, 2015 at 2:10 p.m., after CARS received the cause of failure and estimate from the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the engine for $1,935.00. We could also authorize $75.00 towards fluid for the repair. Mitchell Demand labor guide stated that the repair should take 12.1 hours to complete and the repair facility rate is $59.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $713.90. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $2,623.90, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $75.00 toward fluids for the repair and $613.90 towards labor or pay $2,623.90 towards the repair of the customer's choice.

On June 24, 2015, the customer spoke to a Claims Manager and the Director of Operations advising that the customer wanted a new engine installed in her vehicle. Both the Claims Manager and Director of Operations advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, CARS could supply a used engine for her vehicle.

On June 30, 2015 at 1:27 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the engine supplied by CARS would arrive at the repair facility between July 3, 2015 and July 7, 2015. We also provided the repair facility with an authorization number to begin the repairs on the customer's vehicle.

On July 8, 2015 at 11:14 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer was unhappy with rust on her engine. CARS advised the repair facility to call CARS with any engine issues.

On July 8, 2015 at 4:50 p.m., a claims manager advised the customer that the supplied engine was the correct engine for her vehicle. The claims manager advised the customer that CARS would make the arrangements to pick-up the supplied engine and go over the claim allowance with the repair facility.

On July 9, 2015 at 8:57 a.m., CARS advised our supplier that the engine was to be picked up at the repair facility at no cost to the customer.

On July 10, 2015, CARS sent the attached letter to the customer advising her of CARS' decision and her Service Contract coverage regarding her June 1, 2015 engine claim.

By the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, she acknowledged that she has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. CARS
works with suppliers that we trust to provide good, working, quality parts to our customers. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

It is stated on the service contract under labor: “The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” Mitchell OnDemand labor guide states the removal and installation of an engine to the customer’s vehicle should take 12.1 hours to completer. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS is able to assist with 12.1 hours of labor for the removal and installation of an engine.

CARS’ service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper] coverage. Various provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

As stated in the above paragraphs, CARS is still willing to assist in the amount $2,623.90. However, for the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to offer any additional assistance above and beyond $2,623.90 for the June 1, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, the supplied engine that CARS selected for the customer’s vehicle is pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. CARS also waived the $400.00 shipping fees associated with the return of the supplied engine.

The customer has Service Contract coverage through May 2, 2017. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Value Plus Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

*******

Attachments

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********* and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

As stated in the initial complaint, C.A.R.S. does NOT have the right to supply salvaged parts.

C.A.R.S. paid $2,160 for the salvaged engine. See attached invoice. If you add $2,160 the amount they paid for the engine along with 12.1 hours of labor $726 and $75 for fluids, it totals $2,961. Which is more than what C.A.R.S. is offering to pay for the repairs ($2,636). The offer does NOT equal their actual documented costs.

C.A.R.S. response repetitively copied the terms and conditions of the contract instead of addressing the actual complaint details. As previously stated in initial complaint the definition of salvage is different from the definition of used.


Regards,

****** *********

8/10/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We purchased a used vehicle from ******** Auto Sales in ****** ** 2 months ago, which came with a 3 month 3,000 mile limited warranty from CARS Protection Plus. 10 days ago, the vehicle was making a horrible shaking in the front end, so We took it to a mechanic. CARS REFUSED to even discuss covering the problem without the mechanic completely dismantling the entire front end, which they did over 2 days. Then then faxed the estimate to CARS. We have since been waiting for the approval, which they have been dragging on for a week. Today, we were told theY REFUSE TO COVER IT because "the differential had no fluid", claiming it is a pre-existing issue. How are WE supposed to check for something that has NO WAY of checking?! This is not the oil that has a dipstick! So now the mechanic wants $500 just to cover the labor for tearing out the front end per CARS's demand.

Desired Settlement: I want the company to cover and pay for the repairs. The internet is FULL of complaints, rip-off reports, and lawsuits against this company for these fraudulent practices. There are over 160 complaints here on the BBB alone.

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2005 ***** *********** VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:
1 am in receipt of your letter dated July 28, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on May 26, 2015 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on that same day, May 26, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").
On July 17, 2015, at 3:10 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that the front ball joint axle needed to be replaced. CARS advised that this was a non-covered component under his Service Contract. CARS advised the customer that the drive shaft was covered under his Service Contract. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the customer.
On July 21, 2015 at 10:57 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing front differential and intermediate shaft bearing issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On July 21, 2015 at 11:12 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was experiencing front end vibration, the fluid was very low, and issues with the driveshaft seal. The repair facility further advised that the passenger side intermediate bearing had issues possibly caused by low fluid. CARS again went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.
On July 21, 2015 at 2:08 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was not sure of the date of purchase for his vehicle but thought it was about a month since he purchased the vehicle. He further advised that he never saw oil spots on his driveway. CARS advised that we could not move forward with the claim until we received the repair facility's findings.
On July 22, 2015 at 5:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure to the customer's vehicle was low fluid. The repair facility advised there was evidence of an old fluid leak on the undercarriage. CARS requested that the repair facility fax the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle to us.
On July 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., the customer telephoned regarding the status of the mechanical claim. CARS advised him that we were waiting on the repair facility's fax providing us with the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer’s vehicle.
On July 23, 2015 at 4:51 p.m., the customer telephoned to advise he could not reach the repair facility. CARS again reviewed that we needed the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle in order to move forward with the claim. CARS put the customer on hold and left a message for the repair facility to contact us. The customer advised that he may move his vehicle to another repair facility.
On July 24, 2015 at 11:34 a.m., the repair facility advised us that the customer's vehicle was still at the repair facility and torndown. The repair facility advised that the cause of failure was the axle seal leaking fluid. We advised that we needed the cause of failure and an estimate for the repair of the customer’s vehicle faxed to CARS.
On July 24, 2015, after CARS reviewed the estimate and cause of failure (attached) faxed to us from the repair facility, CARS determined that we could not offer any assistance for the repair of the customer's vehicle because fluid leaks are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract.
On July 24, 2015 at 4:20 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility in a voice message that CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility found that the differential leaked fluid and the vehicle continued to be driven causing bearing, pinion and ring gear damage. Additionally, the intermediate shaft bearing was void of fluid resulting in damage of the bearing.
On July 27, 2015 at 9:38 a.m., a claims manager attempted to review the mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle; however, the customer was very argumentative with him.
By the customer’s signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the customer’s Service Contract at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.” Here, fluid leaks to the customer’s vehicle caused damage to the front differential, bearing, pinion and ring gear damage as well as damage to the intermediate shaft bearing.
Under the customer’s Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various
provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.
For the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the June 21, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.
The customer has Service Contract coverage through August 26, 2015 or when the odometer registers 140,138 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under his Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract.
When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Regards,
The truck in question did lose fluid that is true , however the vehicle lost all the fluid when a u turn was made and and the Alex seal broke witch is covered by the warranty according to my paper work. As 2 different auto shops has said. Also the miles that cars gave is wrong. If you look at the other 200 + complaints you will see that most of them will tell you the same thing I am. Also I would like to see the " signed contract because I don't remember signing anything. 
****** * ****** *******

8/7/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased an extended warranty for my used car that I recently bought from ******* Auto Sales. I have had the car for little over a month and that now requires a full replacement of the rear differential seal. I purchased this warranty to cover expensive repairs-such as this one- but when the dealer called the warranty company, they said they do NOT cover this component. I am furious that I purchased a warranty that I cannot use, at a price of ~$1300, and still have to cover the cost of the repair myself which is about $1800 at the dealer. I WANT A FULL REFUND OF MY WARRANTY POLICY AND TO CANCEL WITH THIS COMPANY, but they claim that I can "cancel but without any refund". WHY AM I NOT ENTITLED TO A REFUND FOR SOMETHING THAT I CANNOT USE!? This seems like a very questionable practice and I am an extremely angry, unhappy customer.

Desired Settlement: I'd like Cars Protection Plus to fully refund the warranty as I have not had the car very long and it will not cover the required repairs. I simply cannot afford to pay the $1300 for the warranty plus the $1800 for the repairs at the dealer.

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2009 ******
VIN (Last 8): ********
OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

   I received your letter dated July 17, 2015, enclosing the customer's concerns contained in

the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on May 30, 2015, the

customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, she also applied for a

CARS Value Plus Service Contract Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles), which was

accepted with payment by CARS on June 8, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract"). The customer's

Service Contract expires on June 8, 2017.

   On July 13, 2015 at 4:30 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising

that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing rear main seal issues. We advised the repair facility

that the rear main seal was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.

   On July 16, 2015 at 9:44 a.m., CARS customer service representative reviewed the July 13,

2015 claim with the customer. The customer was then transferred to the cancellation department.

   On July 16, 2015 at 9:47 a.m., the customer advised the cancellation department

representative that she wanted to cancel her Service Contract because the July 13, 2015 claim was

not covered by her Service Contract. CARS advised that we could cancel the Service Contract;

however, the customer would not be eligible for a refund. The customer stated that she wanted a

full refund. The cancellation department representative went over the Terms and Conditions of

her Service Contract with her regarding non-covered components and our cancellation policy as

stated on her Service Contract. CARS again reiterated that the customer was not eligible for a

refund.

   By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the

terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the service contract: "COVERED

COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and

Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components

not listed regardless of failure.” The rear main seal is not listed for coverage; therefore, it is

the responsibility of the customer to repair.

   It is also stated in the customer’s Service Contract under "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS,

GASKETS, & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with

replacement of a covered component. Additionally, cylinder head gaskets are covered for combustion

and coolant leaks. Intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks only. NOT COVERED:

oil and vacuum leaks." The rear main seal is not covered because no covered component failed in the

customer's vehicle that would require that the rear main seal to be replaced.

   In her consumer complaint the customer is asking for a refund of her Service Contract. CARS is regulated

by state statutes regarding customer refunds. Here, no state statute in the state she purchased her vehicle

requires CARS to refund the service contract; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time.

   The customer has Service Contract coverage through June 8, 2015. If it is determined that the failed

component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's

Value Plus Service Contract.

   When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim.

We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions

regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jason ** *********

General Counsel

JPM/jmm

 

                                                                                                             

8/6/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have attempted to call the business multiple times as well as email the business in regards to getting a replacement ID card but have not been able to make contact with the business.

Desired Settlement: Send a replacement ID for Vin #* ***************** to my home address: * ****** ***** * **** ***** ** *****

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********

2007 *** ***** VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

     I am in receipt of your letter dated July 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 7, 2014 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on that same day, January 16, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract"). The customer has Service Contract coverage through January 16, 2018.

     CARS was able to reach the customer via the email address he provided on his BBB complaint to verify his Service Contract Coverage. The customer's replacement ID card was mailed to him today, August 4, 2015. For this reason, we believe this matter to be resolved.

     CARS' normal business hours are Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Messages can be left for CARS during non-business hours and telephone calls will be returned the next business day. We have provided the customer with an email address for my office if he experiences any issues with his ID card.

     When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Jason ** *********

General Counsel
*******
Attachment

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

**** ***

7/30/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had a one year unlimited mileage service protection contract (*********) with C.A.R.S. covering the period from June 30, 2014 through June 30, 2015 on a used Ford truck I purchased at **** *** **** ***** ** ********* *** in early June of this year (2015), my repair shop (***** **** ****** ** ***** ********* found a problem with my door actuators/locks - a covered item. The cost was estimated to be $250.00; I had a $100.00 deductible. When ****s called C.A.R.S to obtain the authorization number prior to starting the repair work, they were told the claim would be denied because there was a electrical short causing the odometer to only work intermittently. Since I had unlimited mileage, I can't understand how this would be grounds for refusal to honor the contract, and, therefore, find this rejection of the claim to be bogus. If needed, you can confirm this conversation with C.A.R.S by contacting **** at ***** @ ###-###-####.

Desired Settlement: Reimbursement of $150.00

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2001 FORD F150
VIN (Last 8): ********
OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

  I am in receipt of your letter dated July 21, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer
complaint and respond as follows: According to our records the customer purchased the abovereferenced
vehicle on June 21, 2014 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Value Plus
Service Contract (12 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on
June 30, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”). The customer's Service Contract expired on June
30,2015.

   On June 2, 2015 at 2:46 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising
that the customer's vehicle was experiencing left door lock actuator issues.

On June 2, 2015 at 3:08 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised our
claims adjustor that they could not give us the current mileage on the customer's vehicle because
the odometer was inoperable and did not illuminate.

On that same date at 4:34 p.m., our claims adjustor advised the repair facility that the
customer's Service Contract was cancelled due to the inoperable odometer.

The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and
Conditions of your Power Train Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states: "TERMS
AND CONDITIONS at 2 (e): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: An inoperative
odometer, and/or odometer display, voids the Service Contract without refund.” Here as
stated above, the repair facility advised us that the customer's odometer was not working and no
mileage could be displayed; therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer any
assistance with the mechanical claim and cancelled the customer’s Service Contract.

CARS relies on the information provided by the repair facilities, since we are unable to inspect each and every vehicle that has an open mechanical claim. Based upon the information provided by the repair facility, and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the customer's claim and his Service Contract is now cancelled.

The customer states in his consumer complaint that his service contract is unlimited miles; therefore the inoperable odometer has no bearing. The ability to track accurate mileage on the customer’s odometer from the date of acceptance of his service contract is critical in order to ensure proper and timely maintenance for optimum vehicle performance. A functional odometer is also necessary in order to determine the length and scope of service contract coverage, as well as to determine the warranty miles for any shop supplied and/or CARS supplied parts.

As stated above, the customer's Service Contract expired on June 30, 2015; therefore, his vehicle no longer has Service Contract coverage under any of CARS service contracts.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Jason ** *********

General Counsel
*******

Consumer Response:

I do not consider this complaint resolved. The odometer was never completely ”inoperable;” it was working intermittently.  It is currently working despite never having been repaired.  If C.A.R.S had contacted me to discuss the issue instead of arbitrarily canceling the contract, I could have explained the situation. Their actions were taken solely to sidestep paying for the repair that should have been covered by the contract. While their actions were technically within the confines of the contract, C.A.R.S never contacted me to tell me that the contract had been cancelled.  I consider this a poor, shady business practice for a company purporting itself to be reputable.

7/29/2015 Problems with Product/Service
7/9/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The warranty i purchased for my car covers engine and transmission. My truck has transmission issues i took it to two shops and they refuse to cover it due to their opinion of what caused the issue. I have 2 experts in the field for more than 15 years working on ****** and they put it on writing what the cause of the failure was. The rep RC and the supervisor **** dont want to cover a transmission issue leaving me with a 3k bill to pay for.

Desired Settlement: All i want is to have my transmission repaired, thats why i bought a powertrain warranty for. They keep saying "what caused the issue is not covered, but the transmission is having too many issues to say that just one thing caused all them.

Business Response:

June 23, 2015
VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH BBB WEBSITE
******** ****
BBB of Western Pennsylvania

400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220

Pittsburgh, PA 15220

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2006 ****** ****** VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 22, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on March 7, 2015. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 12, 2015 (See attached Service Contract). The customer's Service Contract expired on June 12, 2015.

First Claim: On April 16, 2015 at 10:16 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We further advised that the repair facility must obtain the customer’s permission to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure to determine if the failed component would be covered under the customer’s Service Contract.

On April 16, 2015 at 11:35 a.m., CARS advised the customer of our claim procedures and then explained that we needed a cause of failure and extent of damage from the repair facility to determine if the failure is covered under his Service Contract.

On April 21, 2015 at 1:47 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the solenoid box had failed. The repair facility advised that they would fax CARS an estimate and the cause of failure.

On April 27, 2015 at 9:53 a.m., a claims manager telephoned the repair facility and advised that if the solenoid box could be purchased separately from the transmission, the solenoid box would be a non-covered component under the customer’s Service Contract.

On April 27, 2015 at 10:18 a.m., a claims manager advised the customer that a non-covered component, the solenoid block, caused the failure of a covered component, the transmission; therefore, under the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of his vehicle. The customer then advised that he was going to move his vehicle to a new repair facility for another opinion.

Second Claim: On June 11, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility
advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We further advised that the repair facility must obtain the customer's permission to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure to determine if the failed component would be covered under the customer's Service Contract.

On June 11, 2015 at 4:39 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was torn down and the third gear clutch and the valve body had failed. The repair facility advised that they would fax an estimate to CARS.

After CARS reviewed the estimate faxed to us by the repair facility, it was determined that an independent inspection was necessary to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.

The independent inspection occurred on June 18, 2015. The independent inspector findings were as follows: The transmission had been removed from the vehicle and partially disassembled. There were no documented codes. The fluid was drained and milky which is consistent with fluid intermix. The clutch material was flaking. The steels were hot spotted and the sealing rings were deteriorated. There was light metal on the magnet. The radiator cap was distorted and no signs of external leaks. There was an auxiliary cooler installed but it was in line with the radiator cooler. The repair facility did not want to perform a pressure test.

The independent inspector found that the radiator trans-cooler had failed causing the fluids to mix and causing subsequent damage to the transmission.

Based upon the independent inspector's findings, CARS contacted the repair facility on June 19, 2015 at 9:24 a.m., advising that CARS would not be able to offer any assistance because a non- covered component (radiator trans-cooler) caused the failure to a covered component (transmission). Later that same day, on June 19, 2015, we explained to the customer why we could not assist with the transmission claim.

By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the customer's service contract at Paragraph 1 (f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a non-covered component." Here, the failure to the transmission (covered component) was caused by the failure of the radiator trans-cooler (non-covered component) pursuant to the customer's Service Contract coverage. 

In addition, it is stated in the service contract: "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components.” And under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure." The radiator and the trans-cooler in the radiator are not listed on the customer's Service Contract as covered components.

CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the June 11, 2015 transmission claim.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, 

***** ** *********
General Counsel
*******
Attachment 

6/22/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: May 27th 2015To whom it may concern,My name is ***** ** ****** and I purchased an extended warranty on my 2003 VW Beetle on 01-10-2014 Cost for the warranty was $599.00 and is good for thirty six months unlimited mileage. As of now we are approximately at the seventeen month mark. My complaint is we had work done on the car by ********* ******** ********** at **** ** ******** ************ *** ***** ###-###-#### and the warranty company will not cover the repairs. The car windows stopped working so we brought it in to have ********* ******** look at it and give us an idea what was wrong. We were told in May 2015 that the window motor and etc. had gone bad and would need to be replaced. I gave ********* ******** the warranty paperwork and they said they would make the necessary calls. It does state clearly in the warranty paperwork that power window motors, switches are covered under the warranty. ********* ******** called us back once they had diagnosed and knew what repairs needed to be done. It was stated by ********* ******** that the warranty company Cars Protection denied the coverage. They called and asked to speak with the manager and never received a call back after it was denied. Note: I had another claim awhile back with the same insurance company and they did cover the repairs but it was a nightmare dealing with them. I feel like they deny the claim with the hope you will not pursue the claim. At this point we had no choice to get the repairs done because the windows did not work. I gave permission for ********* ******** to do the repairs. I have enclosed a copy of the repairs done and a copy of the warranty paperwork. I had to take out a loan with my bank and now will be paying interest on the repair bill when I feel I the warranty should cover its fare share of the repair bill. I will be sending a copy to the BBB, Cars Protection, and ******** *** is where we purchased the additional insurance. I will allow a reasonable amount of time before I send it to the Attorney General. Complaint against:###-###-####Cars Protection Plus**** ******* **** **** ***** ************* *** *****Purchased the extended warranty from:Wes Garrett ###-###-####******** ****** ** ********* **************** *** *****

Desired Settlement: Would like for the insurance company to pay for there fair share of the cost on the window motor and switches as stated in there agreement.

Business Response:

June 2, 2015

VIA:    EMAIL/BBB WEBSITE

RE:      COMPLAINT ID #********

2003 VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE VIN (Last 8** ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

   I am in receipt of your letter dated June 2, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 10, 2014. On that same date she also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (36 Months/45,000 Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 15, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

   First Claim:      On April 25, 2014, at 9:05 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing air conditioning compressor and secondary air flow pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

   On April 25, 2014, at 9:22 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that these were non- covered components under the customer's Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim.

   Second Claim: On May 19, 2014, at 1:14 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

   On May 19, 2014, at 1:32 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the water pump for $55.22. ********** ******** labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $170.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $125.22, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $70.00 towards labor or pay $125.22 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take the cash allowance to use toward the repair of her choice.

  The attached invoice was submitted to CARS by the repair facility for payment on June 2, 2015. As shown on the invoice, the repair facility invoiced CARS in the amount of $82.08 for our portion of the repairs to the customer's vehicle. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, on June 3, 2014, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $82.08 via check. The claim was then closed.

   However, after CARS review of this invoice, CARS is willing to pay the customer an additional $43.13, which represents the difference between what CARS authorized and the amount we were invoiced for the repairs made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. A check in the amount of $43.13 will be mailed directly to the customer.

   Third Claim: On April 29, 2015, at 3:54 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing driver and passenger window regulator and window motor issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's door module needed to be coded. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

   On April 29, 2015, at 4:28 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that these were non- covered components under the customer's Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim.

   By the customer’s signature on her Value Limited Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract:                "COVERED COMPONENTS:                      COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a):                    "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." The driver and passenger window regulators and window motors are not listed for coverage under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair.

   Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

   CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the April 29, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

   We would like to point out here that the Form number B1003 **** is not the Service Contract form number for the Service Contract submitted by the selling dealer to CARS. The selling dealer submitted a Value Limited Service Contract and CARS approved a Value Limited Service Contract with payment on January 15, 2014.

   The customer has service contract coverage through January 15, 2017 or when the odometer registers 145,558 miles, whichever occurs first. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of her Value Limited Service Contract.

   When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                                                                      Sincerely,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ***** ** *********                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            General Counsel                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

6/8/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: When I purchased my truck from the dealer, he offered me the extended warranty and I told him I intended on putting rims on my truck and asked him if that would affect the warranty if I so decided to purchase it, he told me no, that they sell cars with rims all the time and still over that warranty. He told me that it was not going to be any issue, so at that point he offered me options of how long of a warranty I wanted so I decided one of the longer warranty's. My truck then had issues and I put it in the shop and then got a call from cars protection plus saying they are canceling my warranty and I cannot receive a refund

Desired Settlement: I want a refund. They are keeping my money for a service I purchased and they refused to render that service to me

Business Response:

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #********

**** DODGE 1500 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 29, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 24, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 15, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On January 6, 2014, at 10:59 a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing tensioner pulley, air conditioning, starter and oil gauge issues. We then went over our claim procedures. The repair facility further advised that there were 22 inch rims on the customer's vehicle.

On January 7, 2014, at 10:59 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the rims on the customer's vehicle were actually 26 inch rims.

On January 7, 2014, at 11:26 a.m., the customer advised CARS that the rims on her vehicle were 26 inch rims and that she installed the rims.

On January 7, 2014 at 11:47 a.m., CARS advised the customer that her Service Contract had been cancelled and the January 6, 2014 mechanical claim made on behalf of her vehicle was denied because the rims on her vehicle were modified from the manufacturer’s specifications. CARS further advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, she was not eligible for a refund from CARS.

On January 7, 2014 at 11:48 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer's claim was denied due to oversized rims on the vehicle and her Service Contract was cancelled. CARS then closed the claim.

On January 8, 2014 at 1:43 a.m., CARS' office manager reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with the customer. Our office manager explained that CARS denied the mechanical claim and cancelled her Service Contract due to oversized rims on the vehicle.

On January 8, 2014 at 1:53 a.m., a customer service representative advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract, CARS does not provide refunds for service contracts when the service contract is cancelled for alterations/modifications of a vehicle.

The customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on November 15, 2013. It was not until the processing of the January 6, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. rims) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications.

By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer’s specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall void the Service Contract." Additionally, "CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS."

Finally, it states at Paragraph 5(c): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued." Here, on January 7, 2104, the customer advised CARS that she installed 26 inch rims on her vehicle; therefore she is not entitled to a refund of her Service Contract.

To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the January 6, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle. Here, on January 7, 2014, the customer advised CARS that she installed the larger rims on her vehicle. The alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer’s specifications and can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers and/or repair facilities, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer’s Service Contract is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS' service contracts. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer is not entitled to any refund from CARS.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

***** ** *********

General Counsel

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.


Regards,

****** *****

5/20/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My car is under warranty by this company. My car had antifreeze in two cylinders and needed to go to the shop. My car spent 7 days in the shop during five of those days I had to rent a vehicle. According to the warranty, they will pay for a rental up to $300. My rental for the 5 days cost $121. They told me that they only pay for car rental for the time the car is actually being worked on. REALLY? So am I supposed to rent a car for two hours a day? I am without my vehicle. Bad enough they don't even cover the entire repair (well it had to be repaired), but the fact that I am without a vehicle that is under warranty for 7 days of which I only rented a car for five of those days, that should be covered in full. My rental is less than HALF of what their maximum pay out is.

Desired Settlement: I would like total reimbursement of my rental.

Business Response:

RE: COMPLAINT ID #********
2005 NISSAN ALTIMA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******
Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 27, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 20, 2015, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on March 2, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On April 17, 2015 at 2:48 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising us that her vehicle was experiencing intake cylinder issues. We then reviewed with the customer CARS' claim procedures, the customer's service coverage and rental benefits.

On April 23, 2015 at 4:04 p.m., CARS returned a voice message from the customer. We advised the customer that CARS was waiting for the repair facility to get back to us with their findings. We again reviewed our claim procedures, the customer's service coverage and rental benefits with her. The customer was unhappy about the rental benefits and a customer service representative advised that CARS service contracts are limited in their coverage and emailed an outline of coverage to her.

On April 24, 2015 at 1:13 p.m., we again received a telephone call from the customer advising us that her vehicle was experiencing intake cylinder issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures, the customer's service coverage and the rental benefits with her.

On April 24, 2015 at 1:48 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us the head gasket was leaking from the coolant port on the #3 cylinder and coolant was getting into the combustion chamber. The chamber head was warped .006. CARS advised the repair facility to fax the estimate to us for review.

On April 24, 2015 at 4:03 p.m., after CARS received and reviewed the estimate from the repair facility and had the opportunity to check on the availability of parts, we then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the head set for $123.63, bolts for $62.41, and pay $75.00 towards the decking. ProDemand stated that the repair should take 10.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $600.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $761.04, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $500.00 towards labor or pay $761.04 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer would take the cash allowance towards the repair of her choice. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin the repairs to the customer’s vehicle.

By the customer's signature on her Power Train Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the her Service Contract. The customer’s service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to take the cash allowance to assist with the repair of her vehicle.

The rental benefits of the customer’s Service Contract states: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of ProDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided with an authorized claim. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” ProDemand Labor Guide stated that the repair should take 10.0 hours to complete; therefore, the customer is entitled $25.00 of rental benefits under her Service Contract. The customer needs to submit a proof of rental to CARS to be reimbursed the $25.00 she is entitled under her Service Contract.

The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract states at 2 (m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use Your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages You may have." As you can see from the above information, CARS replied to the repair facility in a timely manner. CARS received the final repair estimate from the repair facility on Friday, April 24, 2015 and on that same day, we provided options to the repair facility for the customer's decision on how CARS could assist with April 23, 2015 claim.

The customer's vehicle has service coverage through June 2, 2015. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
***** ** *********
General Counsel

5/14/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Upon purchase of a used vehicle on the 25th of March, 2015 I was offered a warranty at a certain price. This warranty covered the vehicle for ninety days after purchase. Approximately two weeks ago the vehicle sprang a leak I ended up with quarts of oil all over the driveway. I had the vehicle towed to a local mechanic to determine the problem. There was a leak in the timing belt cover. Upon contacting the CARS Protection Plus we were informed that the warranty did not cover this problem and that gaskets and seals were considered fair wear and tear items. What kind of warranty is this? Why is it allowed to be sold. Initially, it obviously leaves one to believe for at least ninety days he or she is covered.Contract # ******** Deductible $100.00 Effective date 3/25/15Expiration date 6/25/15 2001 Volvo ****

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund and if possible the cost of repairs which is estimated at over $1000.00

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 12, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 19, 2015. On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 25, 2015 (See attached Service Contract).

On May 11, 2015, at 1:11 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing a timing cover leak. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On May 11, 2015, at 1:24 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing a major oil leak. The repair facility further advised that the timing cover was leaking oil. We advised the repair facility that the timing cover, seals and gaskets, are non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim.

By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the Service Contract:  "COVERED COMPONENTS:   COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a):                                                                                                                 "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." The timing cover is not listed for coverage; therefore, it is the responsibility of the customer to repair.

It is also stated on the customer's Service Contract under "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS, GASKETS, & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component.” Here, the seal in the timing cover is not covered because the customer's vehicle does not need to have any covered parts replaced.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

In his consumer complaint the customer is asking for a refund of his Service Contract. CARS is regulated by state statutes regarding customer refunds. Here, no state statute in Virginia requires CARS to refund service contract; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time.

CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the May 11, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

The customer has service contract coverage through June 25, 2015. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract.


When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

***** ** *********

General Counsel

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  However, I find that the legal definition of satisfactory is far from acceptable. We purchase used vehicles with the understanding that things happen and try to compensate with these so called warranties in my case to the tune of $469.00 for a mere 90 days. Am I the only one who sees the injustice here?

Regards,

******** ******

5/12/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I submitted a review of this business already and would have done this instead but decided to do this form additionally. CARS business practices when it comes to claims is just unacceptable. They sell a warranty on used cars and as im aware a warranty is just that. If something breaks it gets fixed on the providing companies dime. Now it is my fault for accepting a warranty company and not really reading the terms. The amount of time ive been and will be without my truck is far from acceptable. In total it will be 3 weeks by the time I get it back this friday. Not to mention with a $100 deductible for the $2400 warranty I purchased from them at the recommendation of the dealership. My transmission developed a shudder and the amount of hoops that each service company has had to jump through to get this claim paid is far from ok. As I said in my review it is reprehensible and borders on shady. I understand that warranty companies arent in business to pay claims but when theres a valid claim it should be paid. My truck could of been fixed with a replacement trasmission last week but with them wanting the transmission broken down to the point of failure then CARS wanting to "shop around" for parts which I was informed could take 2 weeks and also not knowing where they came from is horrendous. Worse off with their solution to my transmission labor I would have to pay an addition $400 for labor since they only pay $50/hr. $50/hr was a rate from the 1980's and is seriously outdated, and which I dont believe I should be liable for. They are the ones that wanted it broken down which I also dont agree with. If something breaks, and there's a valid warranty your liable. End of story it should be replaced. The delay that has kept my truck in the service is far from acceptable and believe this should be addressed.

Desired Settlement: I want them to pay the tech shops hourly rate for the service I have selected not the $50/hr. I want them to cover the costs of the repair that the shop has recommended and not the shopping around they wanted to do to put some god knows that .50c part in my truck because their bottom line is at risk.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 17, 2014. On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (24 Months/30,000 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on February 18, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

On April 8, 2015 at 2:33 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer advising that his vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. A customer service representative reviewed with the customer, his coverage, criteria for a repair facility, and our claim procedures.

On April 13, 2015 at 9:29 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. A customer service representative reviewed the customer's coverage and claim procedures with the repair facility.

On April 15 2015 at 10:14 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from another repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On April 15, 2015 at 11:27 a.m., a claim adjuster attempted to call the person at that repair facility that opened the claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle; however, he was advised that that person would not be in until the next day.

On April 16, 2015 at 10:55 a.m., CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that there was a "chatter noise:" coming from the transmission. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear the vehicle down to the point of component failure and get back to us with their findings and an estimate for repair.

Twelve (12) days later, on April 28, 2015 at 9:26 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the torque converter failed which sent metal through the unit.

On April 28, 2015 at 11:02 a.m., after CARS received and reviewed the estimate from the repair facility and had the opportunity to check on the availability of parts, we then went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $650.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 6.5 hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $325.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $875.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $225.00 towards labor or pay $875.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We also advised the repair facility that it should take four (4) to five (5) business days for any supplied parts to get the repair facility. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

By the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, he acknowledged that he has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

The Service Contract states under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility’s rate up to $50.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” On the estimate faxed to CARS on April 28, 2015 (attached) the repair facility lists the cost of labor as $95.00 per hour. As stated above, Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide states the repair to the customer's vehicle should have taken 6.5 hours to repair and his Service Contract will pay $50.00 per hour for the labor charges; therefore, CARS is able to pay $325.00 if the customer chooses to use the repair facilities parts and $225.00 if the customer chooses to use our supplied parts. Pursuant the customer's Service Contract, the customer is responsible for the difference.

It states in bold at Paragraph 3 (c):          "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES:                                                     

 A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle in excess of coverage outlined under Labor and Diagnostics.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure.

It is stated at Paragraph 2 (j): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." The customer’s claim is subject to a $100.00 deductible as per his Service Contract.

CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

We would like to point out here that it took the repair facility twelve (12) days to get back to CARS with the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle. Once the cause of failure was provided to us, CARS provided the amount we could assist with for the repair of the customer's vehicle the same day.

For all these reasons above, CARS is unable to provide any additional assistance with the repair of the customer's vehicle. Once the repair facility gives us the customer’s decision on which option for assistance he would like to use to repair his vehicle, CARS will provide an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicle.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

***** ** *********
General Counsel

*******

Attachment


Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

This explanation is the exacting reason of the problem.  They say it took them 12 days to get back to them from the origination of the initial claim.....what does that have to do with anything.  My truck is not the only truck in his shop.  It wouldn't of been there had they did what a warranty is designed to do.  A warranty replaces a defective product which is what this claim is.  The transmission has a torque converter problem which caused failure.  They can say all they want about what the process is but they offered a transmission to the shop of 675.00.  According to the shop there's NO TRANSMISSION ON EARTH that's any good for 675.00.  At best a rebuilt decent one is MINIMAL 2300.00.  The shop I took it too has a impeccable reputation and was recommended by my former shop that didn't have the facilities to tear down a transmission.  Even the shop I took it to had to send it out to be cut open to get to the point of failure.  Which I firmly believe this process is in effect to frustrate the warranty holder in hopes they just get the process over with.  Additionally I dare them to find 1 transmission shop they forced me to take it to that charges $50/hr.  Just because that's what their policy is doesn't make it a good one.  They caused every delay with how their policy goes.  Why I'm even paying for anything on top of the deductible is ridiculous.  A deductible is something an insurance company does not a warranty company.  If they had just authorized the replacement which was determined at the beginning of April my truck would be fixed but that wouldn't be profitable.  They can hide behind all of their policy claim mumbo jumbo they want and I am not claiming that I read it and didn't agreed to it....I am saying that if I had there would of been no chance I would have agreed to it.  I did sign off that I agreed to it and I'm not denying that either.  I went to a respectable dealership and beleived that I was getting a decent warranty and wouldnt have to read it but this is obviously not the case.  The bottom line here is I can plainly see what their policy is on repairs....Im objecting to it being not a fair business practice and their also their labor rates seriously outdated.  Also I'd like to emphasize my point about the replacement transmission they were going to provide the shop.  675.00 for a transmission is not even anywhere close to what it costs for one....even a rebuilt one.  The shop has promised me a 14 month guarantee on the transmission....not some 5 dollar transmission the warranty company was going to "find" at some bargain basement God knows where place.  Im out of pocket for $1000 which includes the "deductible" for a transmission that probably will out live the truck, but at least I know it will function and where the parts came from.  If this is not resolved I'll file a review on every site I can find and make sure people do not make the same mistake I did about this company by not reading the all the rules of every little section of their worthless warranty.  

Regards,

****** ********

5/7/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I am beyond appalled at the way I have been spoken to & handled at this company. I purchased my vehicle 6 months ago, purchasing the Value Plus plan, when brought in for oil change & tire rotation I was told my transmission line may need to be replaced, this was not covered under the plan, even though the transmission section of the Value Plus option I chose to pay for said transmission & lubricated components. When calling customer service, I was told that only the actual transmission would be covered not the line that actually makes the transmission work, & if the line made the transmission not work, that would not cover that either. I don't know what other way the transmission would fail or how else the transmission works other than through the transmission line. These are ridiculous terms that provides a consumer no coverage whatsoever. The contract is misleading & a misrepresentation of coverage. When asked customer service for a list of what is included & not included in my contract plan, they said they could not provide me that. This is a scam, just because you're contractual wording is a certain way does not mean that an implicit coverage is not taken by a consumer when they see transmission coverage & all lubricated components. There is no other way for a transmission to fail than through the transmission line itself. This is a blatant misuse & abuse of our capitalist society & it's consumers. I will also be senidng a complaint to the attorney general for unfair business practices as well as preying on consumers unwittingly.

Desired Settlement: To cover the transmission & all lubricated components that make the transmission run, which includes the transmission line.

Business Response:

  I am in receipt of your letter dated April 28, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 26, 2014. On that same date she also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on December 15, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).                           
  On April 27, 2015, at 1:14 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission line and transmission selector shaft seal issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

  On April 27, 2015, at 2:23 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the transmission lines and transmission selector shaft seal were leaking. We advised the repair facility that these were non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract and CARS would not be able to assist with the repair of the vehicle. We then closed the claim.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
  On April 27, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., the customer's husband telephoned CARS to check on the status of the mechanical claim. We advised that the transmission lines and transmission selector shaft seal are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract. We advised that the Service Contracts are limited in their coverage.

  On April 27, 2015, at 2:43 p.m., the customer called a CARS customer service representative requesting a list of covered and non-covered components. The customer service representative advised that we could send a copy of her Service Contract as covered components are listed on the Service Contract. The customer service representative further advised that CARS would need a written request for a copy of the customer’s contract. The customer was unhappy with that suggestion and was transferred to a supervisor.

  On April 27, 2015, at 2:43 p.m., the customer advised the Customer Service Manager that she wanted a list of covered and non-covered components. The Customer Service Manager advised the customer that the covered parts are listed on the Service Contract. The customer became very upset and ended the telephone call. 

  By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions other Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components
not listed regardless of failure.” The transmission line and transmission selector shaft seal are not listed for coverage; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair. 

  It is also stated on the customer’s Service Contract under "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS, GASKETS, & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets, and fluids are covered only when in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." Here, the transmission selector shaft seal would not be covered because the customer's vehicle does not need to have any covered parts replaced.

  Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

  CARS stands by its decision and is unable to assist with the April 27, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

  The customer has service contract coverage through December 15, 2018. If a claim is opened CARS will process will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of her Value Plus Service Contract.

  When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                                             Sincerely,

                                            ***** ** *********

                                           General Counsel

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

 There is no resolution to deceptive business practices & contractual wording to the part of the consumer. The repair facility also disclosed to me that they have never dealt with a service warranty company that has to consult an "adjuster" before confirmation of covered mechanical parts. If there is a contract that is clear in it's mechanical cover & non-coverage parts then there should be no need for the consulting and/or further investigation of an adjuster to deem that coverage. It is normally covered or NOT covered. A business that will not provide contractual wording of what is NOT covered under it's contract is deceiving it's consumer when stating a general term of  "all lubricated components" in the section of it's contract. When initially signing the contract at the dealership, at time of purchase, I understood & agreed to my "the consumer's" understanding of "all lubricated components" of the transmission to include the "transmission line" which is a lubricated component to the "Transmission" which is supposedly covered under the "Value Plus" plan, that I pay for. 

Regards,

***** ******

5/7/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Purchased a used ***** ********* from dealership, added the Ultimate Value Extended warranty. 8 months later my rear drive train went out. Called CARS, they had me take it to a mechanic. Mechanic started the process, year make model, etc... then they got to odometer. Well my display in the vehicle went out, not the odometer the display. They voided the entire contract ($1800.00) for a breach in contract. I asked Frank to show me where in the contract it states this and they could not tell me. See my contract does read if the odometer is in operable the contract is void, but my odometer is in working order. These people knew my repairs would be $2500.00, they just dumped it on me. The company is set up to take advantage of people. They may have an A+ on BBB, but I guarantee you this is because they have people on staff that merely solve these issues. What CARS protection plus doesnt realize is that my Godfather is a nationally renown attorney. See when he gets a hold of this CARS will change its tune real quick. My advice, if they mess with you contact me my name is ***** ******* ****** ME. I want to help you beat these crooks. They are using insurance to scam people, they dance around their laws and firmly try to push you into giving up. DO NOT GIVE UP, they will honor your claim if you push.

Desired Settlement: Refund me the estimated amount.

Business Response:

I received your letter of April 15, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On February 10, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 13, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On April 14, 2015 at 10:29 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle, advising that there were rear drive shaft and fuel tank issues. During the initial processing of the claim the repair facility advised in a recorded telephone call: "Not able to pull his mileage, because his odometer does not work...Was not able to access scanner but couldn't pull up ...instrument cluster lights up, but as far as readouts, none of stuff lights up.”

Based upon the information provided by the repair facility, and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customers' Service Contract, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the customer's claim.

The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of his Ultimate Plus Service Contract. The customer's Service Contract states: "TERMS AND CONDITIONS at 2.(e). PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: An inoperative odometer, and/or odometer display, shall void the Service Contract without refund.” Here as stated above, the repair facility advised us in a recorded call that the customer’s odometer was not working and no mileage could be displayed; therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer any assistance with the mechanical claim and also cancel the customer’s service contract.

CARS relies on the information provided by our repair facilities, since we are unable to inspect each and every vehicle that has an open mechanical claim.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

***** * *********

General Counsel

4/30/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought an power train warranty from them and my transmission went out and they will not pay the price it's going to cost to have it rebuild they will only pay $790.00 of the $1500.00 when all I was to pay is $100.00 deductible for the repair but they are saying I have to pay the difference.

Desired Settlement: Them to pay for the rebuild on my tranmision minus the $100.00 deductible

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2002 DODGE 1500 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I received your letter of April 10, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On January 23, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 28, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”). The customer has Service Contract coverage through April 28, 2015.

On April 7, 2015 at 9:25 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle, advising that there were transmission issues.

On April 8, 2015 after the repair facility provided its cause of failure and extent of damage, CARS went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply a transmission for $650.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 4.8 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $240.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $790.00. CARS could supply the transmission as stated above and pay $140.00 toward labor or pay $790.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. CARS advised the repair facility to contact the customer, advise him of his options and contact CARS with his decision.

On April 9, 2015 at 9:14 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to take the money for the allowance for the transmission repair. On that same date CARS issued an authorization number for the repair. This authorization number is valid for 180 days. Once we receive the final invoice from the repair facility indicating that the repairs are completed, CARS will pay the claim in the amount of $790.00 as stated above.

By the customer’s signature on his Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read and understood its Terms and Conditions. The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions: “WARRANTY CLAIM PROCEDURE: C.A.R.S has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement transmission we used the cost of the transmission to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the customer chose to take the cash allowance of $790.00 rather than to have CARS supply the transmission for the repair. Any difference in part price that CARS could have supplied and the cost of the replacement parts that the repair facility is charging is the sole responsibility of the customer.

Additionally, nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with rebuilt parts when replacing/repairing a failed component.

CARS’ service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all-inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

 

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

4/20/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Hello my name is ******* *********, I currently have a warranty contract with "cars protection plus" my engine recently failed and seized. I followed procedure per contract and opened a claim on the 27th of February 2015. My mechanic then began a diagnosis of the engine to find out why it failed, first thing he found was that the timing Chain and tensioner wasn't working.He presented his findings to "C.P.P" they then denied case.The following week My mechanic then began further diagnosis per order of my lawyer and found that 2 Pistons in the engine were shredded shortly after finding that new evidence he calls "******" at C.P.P(claims supervisor) ask him to reopen claim and also if they were able to send their own technicians so they can validate thy everything is true.****** tells my mechanic that they will review case and after reviewing it they still deny it. Problem is with this new finding the piston was the cause of engine failure and that's a covered component. So why not cover it now after this finding?

Desired Settlement: I want Cars Protection Plus to honor their contract and repair my engine

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 23, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On June 3, 2013, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on June 17, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”).

FIRST CLAIM: On August 14, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front axle issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply both the right and left front axles for $275.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.5 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $150.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $325.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $50.00 towards labor or pay $325.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The customer chose to take our cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on August 20, 2014 CARS paid the customer $325.00 via check. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On November 19, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing power steering pump and switch and hose issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply the power steering pump for $233.45 and the press hose for $329.64. CARS’ could also pay $10.00 towards fluids for the repair of the customer's vehicle. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 3.4 hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $204.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $677.09, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $10.00 towards fluid and $104.00 towards labor or pay $677.09 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer chose to take our cash allowance towards the repair of his choice. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, on November 24, 2014 CARS paid the repair facility $677.09 via credit card. The claim was then closed.

THIRD CLAIM: On February 27, 2015 at 11:23 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to tear down his vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, the customer was responsible for all tear down and diagnostic costs.

On March 5, 2015 at 10:33 a.m. the repair facility advised CARS that the timing chain had failed and threw the engine out of time. He advised that he had found both valve and piston top damage and that the customer’s vehicle needed an engine replacement.

On March 6, 2015 at 2:58 p.m. after reviewing the repair facility's estimate, CARS telephoned the repair facility and advised that if the timing chain is not broken we would need to know the cause of failure to the customer's vehicle. On that same day, March 6, 2015, at 3:21 p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised that the timing chain tensioner caused the failure to the customer’s vehicle.

On March 6, 2015 at 4:22 p.m. CARS advised the repair facility that under the customer’s Service Contract the timing chain tensioner is a non-covered component and any damage caused by the tensioner is not covered.

On March 18, 2015 at 11:17 a.m. the repair facility telephoned a CARS claims manager to advise that the customer had paid to have the engine torn down further and the timing chain tensioner was not the cause of failure. The repair facility advised that the #4 and #5 pistons caused the failure to the customer's engine. The claims manager advised the repair facility that the failure of the timing chain tensioner would cause piston damage to occur. The claims manager advised that he would review the engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and contact the repair facility with our decision.

On March 18, 2015 at 2:00 p.m., after a management review of the engine claim, the claims manager advised the repair facility that CARS was standing by its original decision and unable to assist with the February 27, 2015 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.


By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract. It is stated in the customer's Service Contract at Paragraph 1 (q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a failure of a non-covered component.”

Here, regarding the February 27, 2015 engine claim, the failure to the engine (covered component) was caused by the failure of the timing chain tensioner (non-covered component).

It is stated in the service contract: "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components.” And "under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "components and Expenses Not Covered: components not listed regardless of failure.” The timing chain tensioner is not listed on the customer’s Service Contract as a covered component.

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facilities since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. When inconsistencies occur regarding cause of failure, CARS stands by the original cause of failure provided to us by the repair facility. The repair facility advised CARS that the timing chain tensioner failed during a recorded telephone call on March 6, 2015. On March 18, 2015 the repair facility advised CARS that the pistons were the cause of failure; however, a failed timing chain tensioner could cause piston damage. Therefore, based on the information provided by the repair facility, CARS stands by its original decision and is unable to assist with the February 27, 2015 engine claim pursuant to the customer's Service Contract.

CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The customer has Service Contract coverage on the above-referenced vehicle through June 17, 2017. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

***** * *********

 


 

 

4/17/2015 Problems with Product/Service
4/15/2015 Problems with Product/Service
4/9/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased cars warranty after being informed by dealership, that cars warranty cover s all major defects or issues with vehicle. I took my car in for a checkup and was informed that there was a major issue with the car. I called cars warranty company after speaking a company rep. I was informed that the issue was not cover i.e. if it states the engine in covered and there was a leak coming from the engine, but from a bracket hat would cause the engine to go out and in order to prevent the engine from going out, it has to be fixed. That bracket isn't covered. And if your your engine goes out you will have to pay a break down fee and they will send one of their people to view. If they decide to replace it will not be for a new product but a rebuilt one with the same amount of miles. Also if your not approved, your paying an additional fee to put parts back together. None of this was explained. It states engine covered, but not parts in engine

Desired Settlement: Take care of issues with car. I purchased warranty, with the assumption that this was a reliable company and lives up to their AAA. Rating

Business Response:

I received your letter of April 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On October 31, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). The same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 3, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On March 25, 2015 at 2:21 p.m., the customer’s wife advised a CARS customer service representative that a repair facility advised her that the above-referenced vehicle was experiencing upper timing gasket and bracket gasket issues. Our customer service representative then reviewed the service coverage for the vehicle and our claim procedures with her.

On March 26, 2015 at 2:22 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing ignition coil, bracket gasket, and timing gasket issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle was not at the repair facility. CARS then advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract that the vehicle must be at the repair facility in order for a claim to be opened on behalf of the vehicle.

On March 26, 2015 at 3:04 p.m., a CARS customer service representative again reviewed our claim procedures with the customer's wife. CARS then advised that under the customer's Service Contract ignition coils are listed as covered components; however, seals and gaskets are non-covered components under the Service Contract.

The above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issues. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer's service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer's signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT

CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, in order for a claim to be opened, and the vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete." In addition, it is also stated at Paragraph 3(b): "The repair facility must call C.A.R.S. at 888-335-6838 to open a claim.”

The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was reviewed with the customer’s wife during telephone conversations on March 25, 2015 and March 26, 2015. Claim procedures were also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). It is clear that the customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in his service contract or on his identification card to properly open a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract.

The customer's Service Contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component. Additionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks. Oil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph 1 (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Here, even if the customer properly opened a claim as outlined on the Service Contract, CARS would not be able to assist with the replacement of any gaskets or any damaged caused by fluid leaks. The engine coils are listed on the customer's Service Contract as covered components.

In her complaint the customer's wife states that that the engine is covered but not the parts of the engine. All of the parts covered under the customer's Service Contract are listed under "COVERED COMPONENTS” on the front of the customers' Service Contract. The attached Service Contract highlights the covered components listed under the "ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM".

The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear- down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. Therefore, it is the customer’s responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down charges.

The customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used. rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all-inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

If the customer's vehicle has not yet been repaired, the customer should take his vehicle to a repair facility to have a claim opened on behalf of his vehicle as outlined on his Service Contract and contract identification card. CARS will review all information provided by the repair facility to determine if CARS is able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

3/24/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased the CARS Protection Plus through ***** ******* ******* ** in the middle of January 2015 when I purchased my pre-owned ******** **** SUV. This was to give my wife and I a peace of mind in buying a used vehicle. Yesterday, I had to bring it to a local ******** **** dealer to investigate the check engine light. The dealer diagnosed that the intake manifold needs to be replaced as well as the steering rack and pinion. The dealer sent their estimates to CARS and started communicating with the adjuster. The dealer called me and explained that CARS is offering to send a used intake manifold and a used rack and pinion to the shop. The shop representative explained to me their deep concern in using a used intake manifold on a ******** ****. ******** **** uses only new intake manifold to repair their vehicles but now I am stuck with a used or salvaged manifold of unknown source or history. As I have asked the CARS adjuster, what kind of quality control are done on the used parts to make sure that they are reliable and safe to use in the vehicle? Are they from a remanufacturing company or a salvage shop (which poses a deep concern to me). I understand that ******** **** parts are not cheap and that's why consumers like me spend our hard earned money to purchase these extended warranties. Another issue that I have is the time to wait for this vehicle to be done. Based on the estimate by the shop, factoring the waiting period for the "USED" parts to arrive and the time to fix the vehicle, I may not get the vehicle until Thursday or Friday next week (a total of 11-12 days). This is really an inconvenience because we use the SUV as a family vehicle (CARS only pay for the actual time that the shop is working on the vehicle for rental car). This is just unacceptable beyond any explanation because now, I have to leave work and make multiple trips to drop-pick my wife from work as well as the children to-from school. The worst part is, we are left with a small sedan that would not fit a family of seven so we are stuck on base until we get the SUV. I know that time and money is very important to CARS and so it is with its every single customers. CARS Protection Plus, I am getting ready to deploy to *********** soon and I am deeply hoping that the used part that you are giving me to repair my vehicle will not cause any harm or problem to my wife and my children so I can focus on fighting the battle that very few of us have been chosen to fight.

Desired Settlement: Change the policy to minimize customer inconvenience. Provide the shop with a new intake manifold from other sources to save money (i.e. new intake manifold with a gasket is sold at **************** for $800 and ships within 24 hours).

Business Response:

 

1 am in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 15, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 15, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On February 24, 2015 at 10:18 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing intake manifold and rack and pinion issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

After CARS reviewed the estimate faxed to us from the repair facility (see attached), CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the intake manifold for $550.00 and we could pay $11.00 to the repair facility for gaskets. We could also supply the rack and pinion for $462.00. We could also authorize $8.70 for fluids for the repair. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 8.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $600.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,631.70, and we could supply the parts and assist with the cost of fluids and gaskets as stated above; and pay $519.70 towards labor or pay $1,631.70 towards the repair of your choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.

On February 24, 2015 at 3:45 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to inquire about the claim allowance and the supplied parts. On February 24, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like to have the parts shipped to the repair facility.

On February 25, 2015 at 8:43 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility on the estimated shipping time of the parts and gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs on the vehicle.

By the customer's signature on his Ultimate Value Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f):                 “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM

PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the supplied rack and pinion are remanufactured parts and the intake manifold is a used part. The supplied parts are covered pursuant to the customer's Service Contract through the service coverage's expiration date of January 16, 2019.

To reiterate the above claim information, the customer had two (2) choices when his claim was processed: 1) have CARS ship the intake manifold and rack and pinion and receive $519.70 towards labor; or 2) accept the amount of $1,631.70 as a money allowance towards the repair of his vehicle. It was the customer's choice to have CARS supply the intake manifold and rack and pinion for the repair of his vehicle. Accordingly, CARS authorized the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his Service Contract.

It states in the customer’s at service contract at 2 (m): PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." If the customer was not satisfied with the length of time to process and ship the parts, he had the opportunity to take the cash allowance.

For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to offer any further assistance for the February 24, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, the supplied intake manifold and the rack and pinion that CARS selected for the customer's vehicle are pursuant to the terms and conditions and covered through the customer's Service Contract’s expiration date of January 16, 2019.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

CARS response simply stated the transaction background but did not address any of my concerns regarding the safety of the used parts to be installed in my vehicle.  I understand the parts warranty but my concerns are beyond that. Please refer back to my original message and try to answer my questions as part of the resolution process. I need these answered for my file. None of my questions were addressed at all. CARS put yourselves in your customer's shoes and think about the value of time. How would you feel not having a vehicle for a week or so and have to take care of your family at the same time with only one vehicle that won't even  fit everybody? Is same day or next day delivery too much to give to your customers as a way of practicing honest business? You did not provide a resolution at all but just stated a scripted and generic response to BBB. 



***** *****

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 10, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer’s additional concerns and respond as follows: On February 25, 2015 at 8:43 a.m., CARS provided the repair facility, chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle, of the estimated arrival dates for the intake manifold and rack and pinion. If the customer was not satisfied with the length of time to process and ship the parts, he had the opportunity to take the cash allowance.

Our parts suppliers arrange to have our parts shipped to repair facilities throughout the country in the best conditions the parts can affordably be shipped. It is very cost prohibited to ship parts overnight to repair facilities in the thirty-one (31] states, CARS currently does business. We make every attempt to obtain parts from suppliers as close to the repair facility as possible to lessen the delivery time.

Upon receipt of the customer’s additional concerns, on March 11, 2015, a CARS claim manager telephoned the repair facility to assure that the supplied parts had been delivered to the repair facility. The repair facility advised the claim manager that the supplied parts had been at the repair facility and the delays to the repair of the customer's vehicle were the result of waiting on parts that the repair facility ordered from Germany. Furthermore, for the last week, the repair facility did not have a rack to perform the necessary repairs to the customer's vehicle. The repair facility told CARS that they hoped to have the repairs completed by the end of business today, March 11, 2015.

CARS works with suppliers that we trust to provide good, working, quality parts to our customers. To reiterate, the supplied intake manifold and the rack and pinion that CARS selected for the customer’s vehicle are pursuant to the terms and conditions and covered through the customer's Service Contract's expiration date of January 16, 2019.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
***** ** ********* 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

    The "used" ******** **** part provided by CARS arrived at the shop before the weekend on the first week of March.  In addition, the ******** **** shop had to wait for a part that they ordered because aftermarket parts or used parts do not come with all the components required unlike the parts that are available/provided by the shop so it delayed the work process. On top of that, there are other vehicles lined up for maintenance which delayed my vehicle completion for a day or two.  I got the vehicle on March 12, almost three weeks after I brought it to the shop for diagnosis and maintenance on Feb 23. On March 13, there was CEL and at the same time the steering was stiff (almost as bad as the humvees that I drove for almost a year in the streets of Iraq).  This was due to the bad "used" rack and pinion that was provided by CARS.  This goes back to my original concern about quality control for these "used parts" normally provided by CARS.  The one year parts warranty provided by CARS do not solve the issues of discomfort to customers from dealing with unreliable "used" parts installed in our vehicles. I am filing a separate BBB complaint for this issue.                                     

Regards,

***** *****

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer’s additional concerns and respond as follows: On March 17, 2015 at 11:32 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing fuel pump and rack and pinion issues. The repair facility advised that that there was an internal failure in the CARS supplied rack. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised that our suppler would be calling the repair facility.

On March 17, 2015 at 1:24 p.m., CARS advised our supplier of the failure to the steering gear and that the repair facility was waiting on his call. On March 18, 2015 at 1:22 p.m., CARS arranged with our supplier to have the steering gear shipped overnight to the repair facility to avoid any delays in down time for the customer.

On March 18, 2015 at 3:48 p.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the fuel pump for $213.50. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair of the fuel pump should take 4.5 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $337.50. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $451.00, and we could supply the fuel pump and pay $227.50 towards labor or pay $451.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash option towards the repair of his choice. CARS then gave the repair facility a CARS' authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicle.

CARS also advised the repair facility that CARS would supply the rack to the repair facility at no charge to the customer and pay for the related rack labor charges at the repair facility rates of $135.00 per hour for a total of $607.50. Therefore, the customer will incur no additional costs as a result of the repair facility advising CARS that the rack had failed.

CARS then gave the repair facility a CARS’ authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicle.

We would like to point out here that CARS did not verily the internal failure of the rack. CARS ordered a replacement rack immediately and paid extra overnight shipping to avoid any inconvenience to the customer.

During that same telephone call on March 18, 2014, CARS advised the repair facility that the core from the February 24, 2014 mechanical claim must be returned to the supplier as well as the failed rack. We further advised that the supplier would send call tags for the requested return.

CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. The customer has service contract coverage on the above- referenced vehicle through January 16, 2019. CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

***** * *********

General Counsel

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

***** *****

3/23/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a value plus service contract for my 2004 ****** ******. I opened a claim to have work done on this vehicle. I was given the run around then finally the claim had been approved. Once work had be done to my vehicle cars protection claimed that they never authorized the work and said they would not pay for the repairs. I called prior to work being done on my vehicle and spoke with a representative by the name of ***** and she assured me that the claim would be taken care of because the issue with my car was definitely under my warranty.. they continued with false claims of discussions with the my mechanic. I know for a fact that the discussions were false because my sister was sitting with the mechanic while he was on the telephone with the cars representative. I asked for a refund of my purchase payment and they refused.

Desired Settlement: I would like them to follow through on what is covered in my contract. They approved the work and then refused to pay once the work was finished. If they do not want to follow through on services documented under contract then I would like a refund

Business Response:

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 27, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 31, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 5, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").

On February 24, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle was experiencing cam sensor and timing belt issues. We then reviewed the rental benefits the claim procedures pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract.

On February 24, 2015 at 3:58 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing timing belt, crank and cam sensor issues. We then went over claim procedures.

On February 24, 2015 at 3:47 p.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility. The repair facility advised that the codes for the cam sensor and the crank sensor were displayed. The repair facility also advised that the timing chain may have issues. The repair facility further advised that some previous repair had been done to the timing chain as evidenced by loose bolts. The repair facility then advised CARS that they had told the customer that they did not want to work with warranty companies and they are not going to do the repairs to the customer’s vehicle. The claim was then closed.

On February 25, 2015 at 8:53 a.m., a customer service representative responded to a voice message left by the customer. The customer wanted to know why CARS was denying her claim. The customer service representative advised the customer that the repair facility does not want to work with CARS, and we neither denied nor authorized the claim. We further explained that CARS needs specific information to process the mechanical claim made on behalf of her vehicle. We advised the customer that the repair facility could speak to a claim manager, and provided information to reach the claim managers.

On February 25, 2015 at 10:53 a.m., a claims manager advised the repair facility of CARS' claim procedures pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The claim manager advised that the customer was responsible for any difference in labor rate, tax, fluid, filters, and deductible, diagnostic or teardown charges where applicable and any charges/expenses beyond what CARS authorizes. We also explained that CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs. We additionally advised the repair facility that he was to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of failure and contact us with the repair facility's findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle. The repair facility was advised that CARS would not be responsible for any repairs done without prior authorization. The repair facility was advised to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down the customer's vehicle to the point of failure and contact us with the findings.

On February 26, 2015 at 2:31 p.m., the repair facility advised a claims manager that the customer told him to go ahead with the repair of her vehicle. The repair facility advised that they replaced the cam sensor and the crank sensor. He went over the prices and then stated that he did not have time to deal with this. He told the claims manager to call the customer and work it out with her. The claims manager then advised the repair facility that we would not be able to assist with the repair because the work was completed without prior authorization from CARS.

On February 26, 2015 at 2:41 p.m., the claims manager advised the customer that we would not be able to assist with the repairs because the work was completed without prior authorization from CARS. The customer was very upset during this telephone conversation.

On February 26, 2015 at 2:43 p.m., CARS' office manager reviewed the mechanical claim in depth with the customer and explained that the repair facility did not obtain authorization prior to repairing her vehicle. The customer then asked for a refund. The office manager advised that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, the customer is not eligible for a refund.

By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1(c): COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, Your signature, repair facility's warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility's identifying information." The identification card also states: "C.A.R.S. will not be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed on the customer's vehicle.

The claim procedures outlined on customer’s service contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that all CARS' customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers' service contract. It also states clearly on the identification card clearly states "WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORK. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice." As you can clearly see from the above information, the repair facility was fully aware that authorization was needed prior to work being performed on the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility stated that they did not want to work with a warranty company during a telephone call on February 24, 2015. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the February 24, 2015 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle, to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant to the customer's service contract.

CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer and the repair facility that was chosen by the customer to repair the vehicle failed to follow the claim procedures that must be followed by all CARS’ customers.

In her consumer complaint the customer is asking for a refund of her Service Contract. CARS is regulated by state statutes regarding customer refunds. Here, no state statute in ******** requires CARS to refund service contract; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time.

If the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of her Service Contract on May 5, 2015 the customer and any repair facility chosen by her must follow the claims procedures outlined above, which are contained on her Service Contract and the contract identification card provided to the customer. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Jason P. McConnell

General Counsel

3/20/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
3/19/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 2008 Toyota Corolla from ****** Motors in ******* ** in Sep. 2013. When I purchased the vehicle; I also purchased a warranty offered by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus for 3 years/unlimited mileage. My car broke down on 01/17/15 so I placed a call on Monday 01/19/15 to request repairs. I was told to take it to an auto mechanic shop and have it looked at and the mech. shop would contact them to open a claim. I took my vehicle,by trailer,to ******** Auto Shop in ******* **. It was determined to have a bad motor and it would need to be replaced. When ********* at ******** Auto Shop, spoke to C.A.R.S. company; she was informed that the motor itself would have to be tore down in order to determine the cause of the problem (by CARS)which turned out to be oil pump going out and causing motor to fail. CARS rep (***** at ext ***) told ******** to find a motor that had similar mileage to my current motor (which has approx 106,000m). She found a motor with 90,000 miles (priced at $1,480). On 1/21/15 I recieved a call from ******** Auto that ***** (with CARS) informed her that his company had found a motor for $875.00. When ***** was asked about number of miles and where the motor was coming from; ******** was informed that information would not be released. I placed a call to ***** and was told the same thing. I explained to him that I had purchased this warranty and since my motor had 106,000 miles;that an equivalent motor should be put back into my car. He also told me the information of location and mileage of $875 motor would not be released and that they (and he quotes) "We are are not forcing you to get the motor" but that they will only cover $875 towards my motor. In addition to this; they will only cover 12.4 hours of labor. CARS ordered the tear down on the motor (labor:$400) and they refuse to pay this as well. ***** gave ******** Auto instructions to do so. When I asked about a warranty on the $875 motor; he said that only warranty I would have would be what is left on my contract.

Desired Settlement: I want a motor to be placed into my car that is in at least as good a shape as my current motor or better. (for sure; not worse). The cost of labor for the entire job should be paid; in addition to the tear down cost; as ***** (with C.A.R.S) told the auto shop to do. The motor that cost $1,480 also comes with a one year warranty from the company it is being purchased from. Total quote from ******** Auto is $1,480 for motor and $1,000 for labor.

Business Response:

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 22, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on September, 19, 2013 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer’s Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on September 26, 2013 (See attached "Service Contract").

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract only one (1) claim was called in from a repair facility on January 19, 2015 at 3:02 p.m. advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

After the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and repair estimate (attached) on January 20, 2015, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply an engine for $875.00. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 12.4 hours to complete and the customer’s Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $744.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,519.00. CARS could supply the engine as stated above and pay $664.00 towards labor or pay $1,519.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer's decision. To date, we have not heard back from the repair facility regarding the customer's decision.

The customer's complaint states that she is unhappy with the engine price, diagnosis and tear down, labor rate and time; however, by the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement engine we used the cost of the engine to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied

parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the engine CARS could supply has fewer miles than the engine currently in the customer’s vehicle.

The Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES:       A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear- down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and tear down charges.

Also, the customer's service contract states at: "LABOR: The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference." Here, the repair facility's labor rate is $70.00 per hour and they are also charging a flat labor rate of $1,000.00 for the engine repair. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract she is responsible for the difference in labor rate and time.

CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

However, CARS is still willing to authorize the January 19, 2015 engine claim in the amount of $1,519.00, once we receive confirmation if the customer wants us to ship the engine or she wants to use the money allowance for the claim.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Consumer Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I have read the response from C.A.R.S. and I have noticed some statements made by them that are inaccurate. In the response; in paragraph 4; it states that "Here, the engine CARS could supply has fewer miles than the engine currently in the customer's vehicle." I spoke with ***** (with CARS) and he stated to me that he would not give me the mileage on the $875 motor and he would not give the information on where the motor was coming from. (that he did not have to) The motor that was found by the auto mechanic shop was priced at $1,480 and that particular motor had 90,000 miles on it and was coming from a business that the auto mechanic shop uses (that has a one year warranty). At no point in time; has anyone from CARS attempted to contact me in regards to the plan for repairs on my vehicle.

I am unhappy that they will only cover $875 towards a motor; when I have looked at many places and have been unable to locate a motor for less than $1,200. They also state that "they have the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." I have purchased this warranty for $999 and deserve to be treated as fair as possible. Being told; "We do not have to tell you the mileage and location from where the motor is coming from" is not acceptable. This is what I was told by ***** and the auto mechanic shop was told this as well; by ******

I want my vehicle repaired and be in; at least; as good of a shape as it was prior to the break down. I do not feel this is acceptable. It also states in their response; they will supply the engine for $875 and pay $664 towards labor or will pay $1,519 towards my choice. I have NEVER recieved a call from them offering anything. Communication has been between myself and auto mechanic shop; of which was told to locate an engine and then they were told that CARS would supply one for $875. Chris was not professional; at all; when I placed a call to him.   

In the response; it also states that the repair facility charges $70 per hour for labor and that they are charging a flat rate of $1,000. I placed a call to ******** auto mechanic shop; and spoke to ********; that has been the "go between" for myself and CARS. She reported to me that; at no time; did she quote "flat rate of $1,000". I am $400 in the hole; at this point, for tear down charges that ***** (with CARS) authorized.

In order to settle this; I want the $1,519 + $400 for charges that CARS authorized. As mentioned above; there are several discrepencies in the letter from ***** ** ********* (general Counsel); in regards to statements made by them to the auto mechanic shop and to myself. This is not good customer service; considering I have paid them $999 and their facts are not accurate.

Regards,

***** **********

Consumer Response: I have read the response sent by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus and I continue to stand firmly on the grounds that I did not authorize the tear down of my car  on January 19, 2015. Authorization was given by ***** at ext: *** with C.A.R.S Protection Plus. I have faxed in a statement sent by ******* ******* with ******** Auto Service stating that ***** requested this to be done; not myself. The statement was faxed to me on 2/11/15 from Ritchies as date and time are on top of fax.


In the response from CARS Protection Plus; it states that "the motor they could supply for the repairs has fewer miles than the engine currently in the customer's vehicle." However; as I have stated before: ******* at ********s; and myself; were told by ***** (with CARS) that the number of miles would not be released to either one of us. I find it very odd; that now it is being said that the motor they could supply has fewer miles.

It states in their response "CARS did not authorize the teardown of my vehicle; which is not true; as ***** did authorize repairs which are at a current total of $400. It is not my responsibility to pay for repairs that I did not authorize.

It also states in their response "To be clear, CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of the customers vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customers Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs." I am not asking for FULL COST of the repairs; as the total cost for repairs is $2,480 plus any fluids, filters, etc that I am responsible for. I am asking for CARS to pay for labor that they authorized. The amount of labor hours for tear down at $60/hr needs to be paid by CARS; as ***** authorized these repairs and I am not responsible.

Regards,

***** **********

3/12/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My car warranty is suppose to cover 100% of the repairs on any internal lubricated part in the vehicle. I have talked to the company and my auto shop has talked to the company and they want to put a 120,000 mile engine in the vehicle. Which is fine. But they aren't doing what the contract says. They only want to cover like half and then I have to come up with the rest of the money. That is not what my contract says.

Desired Settlement: I want them to do what the contract says and cover it 100% like the contract that we have states. I want them to cover the engine cost and installation like they are supposed too.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your recent email and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on June 25, 2013 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). Her Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on June 28, 2013 (See attached “Service Contract").

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract three (3) mechanical claims were opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle as follows:

FIRST CLAIM: On February 18, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing front wheel bearing issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply both the front bearings and seals for $62.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.0 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $120.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $82.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $82.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. On February 18, 2014 at 4:23 p.m., during CARS telephone call with the customer to go over the claim allowance, the customer advised CARS to cancel the claim. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On September 9, 2014 at 9:17 a.m. a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility and the customer as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1,100.00. CARS would authorize $40.00 towards fluids for the repair of the vehicle. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 9.2 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $552.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,692.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $452.00 towards labor and $40.00 towards fluids or pay $1,692.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility was to get back to CARS’ with the customer's decision. On September 18, 2014 at 9:21 a.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to supply the transmission. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract, on September 25, 2014, CARS paid the repair facility in the amount of $492.00 via credit card and on October 14, 2014, CARS paid our parts supplier $1,100.00 via check. The claim was then closed.

THIRD CLAIM: On February 2, 2015 at 2:08 p.m. the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On February 20, 2015 at 10:40 a.m. the repair facility advised CARS that the #1 rod bearing had failed. On February 26, 2015 CARS received the estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle from the repair facility.

On February 27, 2015 at 9:08 a.m., CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the motor for $650.00. CARS would authorize $48.00 towards fluids for the repair of the vehicle. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 9.2 hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $552.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,150.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $452.00 towards labor and $48.00 towards fluids or pay $1,150.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The repair facility was to get back to CARS’ with the customer's decision. CARS advised the repair facility that the motor had 110,000 miles on it. CARS further advised the repair facility that timing belt is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract; however, it would be in the best interest of the customer's vehicle if it would be replaced during this repair since the vehicle would already be torn down.

On March 2, 2015 at 2:36 p.m., the customer advised CARS that we should cover all the costs associated with the repair of her vehicle. We reviewed her service coverage with her. The customer was not happy with her coverage.

As of March 2, 2015, CARS has not yet heard back from the repair facility with the customer's decision. We cannot guarantee that the engine that was quoted to the repair facility on February 27, 2015 is still available. Our suppliers’ inventories change daily.

By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. The customer’s Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3 (f) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing


repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim

as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

The Service Contract states under labor: “The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guide. The hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $60.00 per hour. Should your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” When the claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair your vehicle, the repair facility advised us that the repair facility's labor rate was $80.95 dollars per hour. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customer is responsible for the difference.

It also states at Paragraph 3(c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed bv the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is covered and the tear-down is the customer's responsibility.

CARS’ service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Assuming the quoted engine is still available, CARS is willing to assist with the replacement of the engine in the amount of $1,150.00 in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of your Service Contract. Therefore, CARS is not able to provide the customer with any further monetary assist towards the repairs of her vehicle for all the reasons stated above.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: I would like C.A.R.S protection plus to cover the entire bill of putting in the engine and covering everything to make sure the engine will be good and last in the *****. I mean I feel as if I purchase a warranty that they should cover whatever breaks down on that vehicle as long as it is covered in the contract. and it is. It says that it covers any lubricated part in that car. The engine is a lubricated part.


I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.


Regards,

****** *****

3/10/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I PURCHASED A WARANTY FROM THIS COMPANY AT THE TIME I PURCHASED THE CAR WHICH WAS ON 1/31/2015. I WAS NEVER INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT IT FIRST BEFORE IT BECOMES AFFECTIVE. ABOUT 2 WEEKS AFTER PURCHASE I NOTICED THE VOLTAGE IN THE CAR WOULD GO FROM 14.2 VOLT DOWN TO 12.6 AND BACK UP. I "THOUGHT" I WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE ALTERNATOR. SO I CALL THEM TO ASK IF THEY HAD SPECIFIC SHOPS THAT THEY DEALT WITH.THEY SAID THAT THEY DID NOT SHOW I HAD A WARANTY IN AFFECT BUT STILL TOOK MY NAME AND VIN NUMBER AND ASKED WHAT PROBLEM I WAS HAVING. WELL IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE THAT AGAINST ME LATER.WHEN THEY RECIEVED THE PAPER WORK FROM THE DEALER THEY DENID COVERAGE BECAUSE THE CAR NEEDED REPAIR. I NEVER SAID THE CAR NEED REPAIR NOR WAS IT AT A REPAIR SHOP. THEY ASSUMED THAT. IT TURNS OUT THAT AFET READING THE OWNES MANUAL THAT WAS A NORMAL CONDITION WITH THIS AND MANY OTHER NEWER CARS. THE ALTERNATOR CUT BACK ON VOTAGE WHEN NOT NEEDED. SO I FEEL THEYMADE A UNFAIR AND UNKNOGELAGABLE DECISION AND WAS BASING IT ON SOMEBODY THAT HAS NO KNOWALAGE OF THIS INSTEAD OF A LICENCED REPAIR SHOP.

Desired Settlement: REINSTAE THE WARANTY

Business Response:

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 27, 2015, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer contacted CARS on February 16, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., advising that he purchased the above-referenced vehicle on January 31, 2015 and the voltage was fluctuating. The customer further advised a CARS customer service representative that the vehicle may be experiencing alternator issues. During that telephone call, CARS thoroughly searched our database but could find no record of the selling dealer ever submitting to CARS a service contract application for the customer's vehicle. We advised the customer that a service contract is not active until we receive it with payment, process the service contract application, and approve it. We then referred the customer back to the selling dealer.

Thereafter, on February 20, 2015, CARS received the customer's service contract application; however, said service contract application with payment was rejected because we were previously notified by the customer that his vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance.

On that same day, we advised both the customer and the selling dealer in writing of the customer's service contract application rejection because CARS was notified that the customer’s vehicle was in need of repair. At no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract application.

Directly above the signature line for the owner’s acceptance to terms, the service contract states:  "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this application is received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase."  It also states at Paragraph 2(e): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S."

 

The service contract states under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS.") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. C.A.R.S. does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase."

Here, the customer telephoned CARS to advise us that he was experiencing voltage issues with his vehicle. The customer also states in his consumer complaint that he telephoned CARS to find a repair facility for his vehicle. Therefore, CARS was correct in our decision to reject the customer's service contract application for cause because we were informed by the customer that his vehicle was having mechanical failures prior to service contract approval.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Sincerely

 

***** ** *********

General Counsel

Business Response:

Attached please find CARS' response.

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

SINCE THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED THE SELLING DEALER SPOKE WITH C.A.R.S. AND EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A NORMAL CONDITION FOR THIS CAR WHICH THEY REFUSED TO BELIEVE, SO THEY (CARS ) WAS REFERRED TO AN ELECTRICAL SHOP TO WHICH THEY SPOKE  AND TOLD THE SELLING DEALER TO RETURN THE PAPER WORK TO THEM. WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ACCEPT THE CONTRACT.WELL SUPRISE THEY SENT A LETTER BACK (INCLOSED) STATING NOW IT WAS PAST THE 30 DAYS SINCE THE CAR WAS PURCHASED SO THEY WERE NOT GOING TO HONOR THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE CAR WAS INSPECTED,WHICH I HAVE NO PROPLEM WITH AS LONG AS THEY PAY THE BILL.I AM NOT GOING TO SPEND MY MONEY TO HAVE A CAR INSPECTED THAT IS IN PERFECT WORKING ORDER. THEY SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE ON THERE STAFF WHO HAVE A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF AUTOMOBILES,AFTER ALL THEY ARE A AUTOMOTIVE WARRANTY COMPANY. SHOULD THIS HAVE BEEN THE CASE THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS CAR HAS AN ALTERNATOR WITH THE ELECTRIC POWER MANAGEMENT. ( PAGE 3-37 OF THE 2008 OWNERS MANUAL) DO YOU NEED A COPY OF THAT TO PROVE MY POINT THAT THE CAR DOES NOT NEED AN INSPECTION.THIS IS JUST ANOTHER TACTIC THEY USE IN HOPING THAT THE CUSTOMER WILL GO AWAY INSTEAD OF HELPING THE CUSTOMER.

3/10/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We purchased a vehicle with CARS protection plus warranty. The transmission in my truck needed to be completely re-built and it is covered under my warranty. The fine print on the back states that I should have called before any repairs were made. However, I did not see this, and needed a timely repair since this is my only vehicle. ****** ************ removed the transmission and the old parts are available for CARS protection plus to view. I called CARS protection plus, and they stated "since the process was already started, nothing will be covered." I have spoke to customer service as well! They will not provide coverage on their warranty or provide good customer service.

Desired Settlement: I wish for CARS protection plus to cover re-built parts and installation of transmission, or at least provide part of warranty that I purchased! At least work with me in some manner.

Business Response:

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 26, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On October 16, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on October 27, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On February 24, 2015 at 1:18 p.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then reviewed the terms and conditions of his service contract with him and our claim procedures.

On February 25, 2015 at 11:08 a.m., the customer's father advised CARS that the transmission on the customer’s vehicle had already been repaired. We advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair since the repairs were completed without prior authorization. We then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with his father and our claim procedures.

On February 25, 2015 at 11:29 a.m., the customer's mother telephoned CARS to obtain the status of the customer's claim. We advised that since the repairs were performed without prior authorization from CARS, we were unable to assist with the repair pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. We then reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and our claim procedures. The customer's mother then advised us that she was contacting the Better Business Bureau.

On February 25, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems; specifically the transmission. We then went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facility.

On February 25, 2015 at 4:38 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to his repair facility on February 16, 2015. The repair facility further advised that the transmission was already overhauled and ready to be installed in the customer's vehicle. The repair facility explained to CARS that the customer did not notify him that the customer had a Service Contract until the repair was basically complete. The repair facility advised that they would send CARS an invoice for our review.

On February 27, 2015 at 8:01 a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Condition of the customer's Service Contract, we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle because the repairs were done without prior authorization from CARS.

On February 27, 2015 at 1:09 p.m., CARS advised the customer’s mother that we could not assist with the claim because the repairs to the failed parts had been performed without a claim being opened by the repair facility and authorization given by CARS.

By the customer's signature on his Power Train Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The service contract states at Paragraph 1(c): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility must provide C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. with an estimate and obtain an authorization number before any repairs are begun and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, your signature, repair facility’s warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility’s identifying information." The identification card also states: "C.A.R.S. will not be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices." By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed. It was not until February 25, 2015 at 3:54 p.m., that the repair facility telephoned CARS to open a claim and advised CARS that the transmission had already been overhauled and was ready to install in the customer's vehicle.

The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s Service Contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that ab CARS' customers must follow in order for the claim to be properly opened, authorized and paid, if it is determined that the repairs are covered under the customers' service contract. It also states clearly on the identification card clearly states "WARNING: YOUR REPAIR FACILITY MUST OBTAIN AN AUTHORIZATION NUMBER PRIOR TO STARTING ANY REPAIR WORK. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoice."

As you can clearly see from the above paragraphs, the customer and the repair facility were fully aware that the repairs were performed prior to the February 25, 2015 opening of the transmission claim. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the transmission repairs to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant the customer’s Service Contract or to determine the amount we would be able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract; therefore, we were unable to assist with the claim because the customer failed to follow the claim procedures that must be followed by ab CARS' customers.

If the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of his service contract on October 27, 2015 or when the vehicle reaches 155,901 miles, whichever occurs first, the customer and any repair facility chosen by him must follow the claims procedures outlined above, which are contained on his Service Contract and the identification card provided to the customer. If it is determined that the failed component is covered, CARS will pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Power Train Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

CARS protection plus has poor customer service.  We signed the warranty without being aware it even was a warranty!  That is ours and the salesman's fault, we didn't read over everything we signed as we should have.  However, when this was explained to CARS protection plus, they didn't care.  They provide NO CUSTOMER SERVICE!  They could at least reimburse us for the cost of the warranty, which was $499.  We opened the claim before the repair process ended.  The parts were all present for a claims' person to inspect.  Bottom line is CARS protection plus was not there to help us when we needed them the most.  They provide little to no service to their customers!


Regards,

****** **********

3/10/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Attempted cancelation of contract under false reasons.

Desired Settlement: A running, moving, working vehicle.

Business Response:

 

1 am in receipt of your letter dated March 4, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On January 22, 2015, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on January 26, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract”].

On February 12, 2015, at 1:59 p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing encoder motor issues. We advised the repair facility an encoder motor was not covered under the customer’s Service Contract; therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the claim.

On February 16, 2015, at 11:10 a.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential issues. After we went over our claim procedures with the repair facility, the repair facility advised CARS that the vehicle was equipped with aftermarket rims.

On February 16, 2015, at 4:26 p.m., the repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was equipped with 285/45/R22 tires that appeared to be aftermarket. The repair facility further advised that the tire pressure sensors were not reading.

On February 16, 2015, at 4:40 p.m., the customer advised CARS that he had made no changes to anything on the vehicle since he purchased it. He further advised that he heard a popping noise from the rear differential on February 14, 2015.

On February 16, 2015, at 4:40 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer’s claim was denied due to oversized tires on the vehicle and his service contract was cancelled. We explained that we would refund the amount CARS received for the Service Contract with a signed General Release. CARS then closed the claim.

On February 17, 2015, at 11:40 a.m., a CARS customer service representative reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with him. The customer service representative then transferred the customer to a claims manager. The claims manager explained that CARS denied the rear differential claim and cancelled the customer’s service contract due to oversized tires on the vehicle.

On February 24, 2015 CARS sent a General Release (see attached) to the customer for his notarized signature for the full amount that CARS received from the selling dealer. We advised that once we receive the original General Release back with the customer's notarized signature via regular mail, we would forward the refund through the selling dealer. To date, we have not yet received the notarized General Release.

CARS believed that the customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on January 26, 2015. It was not until the processing of the February 16, 2015 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. oversize tires) of the customer's vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. Even though options may have been offered for larger wheels, the manufacturer's specifications for the customer’s vehicle are 265/65R/18 (See attached ********* standard tire sizes for 2007 ***** ********). In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(g) and 2(e): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer’s specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall void the Service Contract." Additionally, "CARS reserves the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS."

To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the February 16, 2015 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle. As stated above, the alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications and can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers and/or repair facilities, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer's service contract is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS’ service contracts. However, CARS is still willing to refund the amount CARS received for the customer's Service Contract from the selling dealer upon receipt of a notarized General Release. The refund will be made through the selling dealer.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.


Regards,

****** *******

2/23/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 3 year extended vehicle warranty. A year into the coverage I decided to cancel the warranty. Car Protection Plus received $2000 for this 3 year warranty. One year later the value of remaining on the warranty should be $1300 dollars. When I cancelled my policy, car protection plus did not want to discuss any refund amounts and rather told me to deal with the dealership. I went to the dealership after car protection plus mailed the check, and have only received 25% which is $500. I'm filing this complaint as I should receive 66% of the amount paid to car protection plus, and thus far have only received 25%. The expected refund amount: $1300 The received refund amount: $500 Pending refund amount from car protection plus: $800

Desired Settlement: Refund an additional $800

Business Response:

RE:     COMPLAINT ID #********

2003 MERCEDES CL500 VIN (Last8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 17, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 2, 2013. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on January 9, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

On December 4, 2014, CARS received a coverage cancellation request from the customer. The customer’s request for cancellation of his Service Contract was processed on December 5, 2014.

The customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid."

CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above-referenced vehicle stating that he had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the service contract. Therefore, CARS is directed by *** **** state statute to refund a pro-rated amount of the monies CARS received for the Service Contract, less any claims paid and less a 10% service fee.

CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers and the dealers have the right to make profits on the service contracts. Since the selling dealers pay CARS for a customer's service contract, we send our portion of the refund to the selling dealer. This provides the selling dealer the opportunity to refund the customer their portion of the profit of the monies due the customer. Here, the customer’s selling dealer remitted the amount of $799.00 for his Service Contract. Therefore CARS calculated the customer's prorated refund as follows:

Amount received from dealer for service contract: Term of service contract - 36 months

$

799.00

Less seven (7) months proration $24.98 per month

- $

244.14

Less stop payment fee

- $

15.00

Less service fee

- $

50.00

Total refund owed by CARS

$

489.86

Total refund owed by Dealer

$

849.03

Total amount due Customer from the Dealer

$ 1,338.89

 


 

On December 9, 2014, CARS mailed the dealer check no. 214994 for our portion of the refund. This check was never received by the dealer and the check was never cashed. After thirty (30) days, CARS stopped payment on check no. 214994. Thereafter, on January 22, 2015 CARS sent the attached letter and check no. ****** for our portion of the refund to the dealer. Any remaining monies are the responsibility of the selling dealer.

On February 18, 2015, CARS spoke to the dealership regarding the customer's BBB complaint and the monies due the customer. We were advised by the dealership that they refunded the customer the full amount he was owed from both CARS and the dealership. If this is not the case, please advise CARS.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Thank you I will contact the dealer.

Regards,

****** **********

2/13/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
2/10/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
2/4/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: C.A.R.S Protection Plus Service Contract is fighting my macanic on prices for parts....they want to use used parts to fix my truck when I paid for an extended warranty. Paying the amount I paid for the warranty I should not have to wait for 5 plus days for them to send parts to get my truck fixed. They were also very rude to me when I talked to them multiple times on the phone and are not willing to work with anyone.

Desired Settlement: Finish the job in a timely manner so that I can have my truck for work

Business Response:

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 30, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 20, 2013 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer's Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on November 25, 2013 (See attached "Service Contract"). The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through November 25, 2015.

Since the inception of the customer's Service Contract only one (1) claim was called in by a repair facility on January 28, 2015 at 2:41 p.m., advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing two (2) front wheel bearings, rack & pinion, power steering pump, blower motor resister and engine issues.

On that same date at 2:53 p.m., a claims adjuster contacted the repair facility. During that telephone call the repair facility also stated that among the issues with the vehicle, the engine was running rough and there was an engine leak. We then explained our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility also advising that the vehicle would need to be torn down to the point of component failure to determine the exact cause of failure and extent of damage. The repair facility was to obtain the customer's approval for the teardown.

On that same date at 4:09 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer inquiring about the teardown procedures. During the telephone call the customer expressed her unhappiness with the teardown and also stated that she was aware the vehicle needed a new engine.

On January 29, 2015 at 3:29 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer refused teardown of the engine. We then asked the repair facility to provide us with its cause of failure and estimate for repair of the other components in need of repair. We also requested that the repair facility state on their estimate that the customer was refusing teardown of the engine relating to the engine noise.

After receiving the repair facility's cause of failure and estimate for repair (which also included replacement of the upper control arm assembly, which was not mentioned before), CARS contacted the repair facility on January 30, 2015 at 9:14 a.m., to review the estimate. The invoice also included the customer's refusal for the teardown of the engine. We then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the two (2) front hub assemblies for $145.14, a rack and pinion for $179.84 and a power steering pump for $36.45. We would also allow $8.00 for fluids. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 6.5 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $390.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $659.43. CARS could supply the components as stated above and pay $290.00 towards labor or pay $659.43 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then reviewed the upper control arm assembly, which were not mentioned previously by the repair facility. We then asked the repair facility for the ball joints measurements and to call us back with their findings.

On that same date at 11:01 a.m., our claims manager received a telephone call from the customer who was very argumentative regarding the claim. Our claims manager went over the customer's options as stated above, to either ship the parts or use the money allowance. The customer wanted to know why we have to supply used parts. Our claims manager explained that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions, CARS has the option to provide new or used parts. In the alternative, the customer could take our money allowance for the repairs. Our claims manager also explained to the customer that since she refused to teardown the engine to determine the cause of failure, if there was any further damage to the engine due to continued operation, she would be solely responsible for the repair.

On January 30, 2015 at 11:11 a.m., our claims adjuster returned a telephone call to the repair facility. The repair facility explained that they were mistaken about the upper control arm assembly and now the vehicle only needed the lower ball joint. We requested the repair facility to send an updated estimate. See attached estimate.

On January 30, 2015 at 2:20 p.m., after reviewing the new estimate, our claims adjuster contacted the repair facility and went over the new total amounts we could offer for the claim as follows: We could supply the two (2) front hub assemblies for $145.14, a rack and pinion for $179.84, power steering pump for $36.45 and lower ball joint for $22.99. We would also include an additional $12.00 for the rack and pinion and $8.00 for fluids. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 7.4 hours to complete and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $444.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $747.42. CARS could supply the components as stated above and pay $344.00 towards labor or pay $747.42 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that the customer would take the allowance for the claim in the total amount of $747.42. An authorization number was then given to the repair facility for the claim. Once CARS receives the final invoice advising that the repairs are completed we will pay the repair facility the amount of $747.42 pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. The customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer’s decision to either ship the replacement parts offered by CARS or take the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component. Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to take the money allowance for the repair; therefore, the time frame issue mentioned in the customer's complaint to supply the parts are a nonissue.

With regard to the customer’s engine issues, the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract state at Paragraph 3 (c) "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. Therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to pay for all diagnosis and teardown charges. Since the customer refused teardown or repair of the engine, should further damage occur due to continued operation, it would be the sole responsibility of the customer to repair as previously stated.

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facilities and customers, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. As you can see from the claim information, the repair facility originally provided CARS with erroneous information regarding the upper control arm assembly, which they later informed us was lower ball joint failure.

CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all-inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper] coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the teardown, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Accordingly, CARS has timely fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions the customer’s Service Contract regarding the customer's January 28, 2015 claim.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] My complaint is that I paidvso Mich for the extended warranty and yet t have multiple out of pocket expenses..... The auto repair shot says it needs a new engine... Yet C.A.R.S wants the engine tore down at my expense. I'm already paying $500 out on things they do not cover. I'd an auto repair place says it needs a new engine they should fix it and make the customer happy. Even a used engine which they would pur in it would be fine. A mechanic does what he does for a living cause he is good at his job. So if he says it needs a new engine, it does. U shouldn't have to pay for a tare down.

Regards,

Racheal Sopoliga

2/4/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: First, THE POLICY HAS NOT, IS NOT WORTH THE MONEY. If anyone is considering this company KEEP AND SAVE YOUR MONEY. Pay for your repairs yourself. You will come out much better.We purchased the top policy offered in 8-2011 for 48 months/unlimited mileage. We paid cash for the vehicle and the policy. Originally the policy price was over $2,000 but because we were paying cash for everything we negotiated it down to $1,995.It has a $0 deductible. In two separate submissions to this company, three years apart, THEY NEVER FULLY COVERED ANYTHING STATED. Each time they only covered part of the issue. The first time on a $2753 bill they only covered $285. We paid the difference. Although states covered on the warranty paperwork. The second time a couple years later the total was $1665. They only covered $703.It left us and the repair shops with our jaws dropped. Basically if your vehicle has any issue under the hood that doesn't start inside a covered component, they will be able to slide out from under the charges. If the issue starts externally on any covered part they might cover some of it.Next having their rental benefits didn't benefit either. You're reimbursed per 8hrs. So, if the actual work time is less than 8hrs, not shop time without your vehicle, you have to pursue a rental on your own without reimbursement. Which is what we had to do. WE RENTED OUR OWN VEHICLE BECAUSE "IT DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR REIMBURSEMENT." They use a website to figure repair hours and ours was 3hrs total.The warranty company and repair shop both told us that the parts couldn't get to the shop till next week, and that would be the soonest. So, because they don't pay for "down time" regardless of reason. We ended up paying for a rental as well as $961 for 2nd repair.$1995 policy + $2,467.35 repair#1 + $961 repair#2 + rental paid. We ended up coming out of more money than had we paid for all repairs ourselves. COST TOTAL $5,423 TO HAVE POLICY, $4,418 IF DIDN'T HAVE POLICY. we lost $1,005 w/policy. NOT WORTH IT...

Desired Settlement: PLEASE HAVE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO ANYONE SEARCHING THIS BUSINESS. WE WILL ALSO NOTE IT VIRALLY. THANKS

Business Response:

I received your letter dated January 16, 2015, enclosing the customer's concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on August 30, 2011, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Limited Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on August 31, 2011 (the attached "Service Contract").

FIRST CLAIM: On July 24, 2012 at 11:41 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility.

Only July 25, 2012 at 2:06 p.m. CARS advised the repair facility that we could not assist with the repair of the vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The failure of a covered component (i.e. head gasket) was caused by the failure of a non-covered component (i.e. water valve). In addition, the vehicle showed signs of continued operation.

On July 25, 2012 at 3:54 p.m. and 5:05 p.m., two (2) telephone calls were received from both the customer and the customer's father. In each individual telephone conversation it was thoroughly explained why the repairs were not covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.

On July 26, 2012 at 9:01 a.m., CARS was advised by the repair facility that the timing cover was also leaking oil. CARS explained that the timing cover was also a non-covered component.

SECOND CLAIM: On August 1, 2012 at 11:56 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claims procedures with the repair facility. Later this same day at 1:10 p.m., CARS was advised that the repair facility found the water pump leaking during the repair of the head gasket.

After CARS received the estimate for repairs, CARS went over with the repair facility on August 1, 2012 the amount we could authorize for the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract as follows: CARS could supply a water pump for $57.07. Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide states that the repair should take 2.1 hours and the customer's service contract will pay $109.00 per hour; therefore, total labor allowed was $228.90. We explained that the total value of the claim was $285.97 and we could supply the water pump as stated above and pay $228.90 towards labor or pay $285.97 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer’s decision.

That same day at 1:13 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to use our money allowance for the repairs. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair. When CARS received the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs to the customer's vehicle were completed, CARS paid the amount of $285.97 to the repair facility pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

THIRD CLAIM: On October 15, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., CARS received two telephone calls from a repair facility advising the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the master window switch, washer reservoir, and the window regulator roller. The repair facility was advised that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract the master window switch, washer reservoir, and window regulator roller were non- covered components and CARS was unable to assist with the claim.

FOURTH CLAIM: On January 15, 2015 at 2:53 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claims procedure with the repair facility. Later that same day at 3:19 p.m., the repair facility advised they found the transmission fluid extremely low due to the transmission cooler leaking into the electric fan. The transmission seal rings failed, the mount was bad and the air filter was soaked due to overspray of transmission fluid.

On January 15, 2015 at 3:49 p.m., CARS went over with the repair facility the amount we could authorize for the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract as follows: CARS could supply a transmission cooler for $180.99, transmission fluid for $48.00, and coolant for $28.00, as well as seals for $71.92. Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide states that the repair should take 1.6 hours and 1.4 diagnostic time totaling 3 hours, the customer's Service Contract will pay $125.00 per hour; therefore, total labor allowed was $375.00. We explained that the total value of the claim was $703.91 and we could supply the part, fluids, and seals as stated above and pay $375.00 towards labor or pay $703.91 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with their decision.

On January 15, 2015 at 4:54 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the customer asking why we were using aftermarket parts and requested rental benefits. It was thoroughly explained that CARS would be shipping OEM parts for the vehicle pursuant to the customer's Service Contract. Additionally, the customer was advised that the rental expenses are covered for every eight (8) hours of labor time. In this case the time for labor was 3 hours per Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide; therefore, no rental benefits were available.

 

That same day at 5:03 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to use our money allowance for the repairs. We then provided the repair facility with an authorization number for the repair. When CARS receives the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs to the customer’s vehicle were completed, CARS will pay the amount of $703.91 to the repair facility, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

By the customer’s signature on the Service Contract, he acknowledge that he has read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract. It states under Terms and Conditions “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Other than those components listed above, no other components are covered bv the limited service contract regardless of the cause of failure. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus. Inc.” With regard to the third claim opened on October 15, 2013, the master window switch, washer reservoir, and window regulator roller are non-covered components under the customer’s Service Contract.

Additionally under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract it states: “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIMS PROCEDURES: C.A.R.S. has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.”

In summary, the customer’s Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the teardown, filters, fluids, taxes, and the difference in labor rates.

CARS service contracts are to assist with covered mechanical failures; they are not intended to pay 100% for customer’s repairs. The customer is also responsible for any and all costs relating to the teardown of the vehicle. After a claim is authorized by CARS the labor time allowable for the repair does include the cost to replace and repair. Any difference in the parts price that CARS could have supplied and the cost of the replacement parts that the repair facility is charging the customer is the sole responsibility of the customer. Here, CARS has paid a total of $285.97 and authorized the amount of $703.91 towards the transmission cooler repair.

For all these reasons above information, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations regarding all of the claims on the customer's vehicle, pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.


When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 



2/4/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 1998 ford ranger on 01/16/2015; along with a service contract from CARS PROTECTION PLUS. I did so knowing I was responsible for most items, Including the tires, which I promptly made an appointment a mechanic to replace, because they where worn. Being in the Army we have our personal vehicles checked for safety before going on leave or pass, so I decided to get them replace. The mechanic discovered that there where issues with the brakes, and the ball joints. I know I'd have to pay for pads, drums and the like, but there were other issues covered under the "covered components" particularly the ball joints. They refused to cover the ball joints (because it was a pre-existing condition) and told the mechanic they would cover roughly $28 dollars of an over $2200 repair. Now if normal wear and tear are factors of the pre-existing conditions, and the term pre-exhistinng condition isn't mentioned in the contract, why do they sell this coverage to cover any vehicle that is not new?It is disappointing that a business with this kind of service can be listed so highly by the BBB.

Desired Settlement: I would like them to honor their contract, and assume the risk they take when accepting customers. the ball joints cost for repair and the items under brake components cost of repair.

Business Response:

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 26, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:     According to our records, the customer purchased the above-

referenced vehicle on January 16, 2015 and on that same date he applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles]. The customer’s Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on January 20, 2015 (See attached "Service Contract"].

On January 23, 2015 at 11:44 a.m., the customer advised a CARS customer service representative that his vehicle was shaking either on January 21, 2015 or January 22, 2015. He further stated that he took his vehicle to a repair facility and was advised that he needed brakes and ball joints replaced. The CARS customer service representative went over the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract with him.

On January 23, 2015 at 1:21 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing ball joint, brake, parking brake cable, alignment and rear wheel cylinder issues. We then went over our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility.

On January 23, 2015 at 1:39 p.m., the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that his vehicle needed tires at the time of vehicle purchase. He further advised that the dealer lowered the sales price of his vehicle so that he could purchase tires.

Later that same day the repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle had a grinding sound in the rear of the vehicle and popping sounds in the front of the vehicle. The repair facility further advised that the issues with the ball joints were a result of age. CARS advised that we were unable to assist with the ball joint repairs because the failures were prior to the customer's Service Contract acceptance. The brake shoes, alignment, tires, and parking brake cable were non-covered components pursuant to the customer's Service Contract.

We then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility. We could supply the rear wheel cylinders for $ 20.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.8 hours to complete, and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore,

 

total labor was $108.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $28.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $8.00 towards labor or pay $28.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility was to get back to us with the customer’s decision.

On January 26, 2014 at 9:29 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they thought the customer took the vehicle to the selling dealer. The claim was then closed.

Please be advised that by the customer's signature on the service contract application, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b):                                                                                                          "COMPONENTS AND

EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS.”) approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. C.A.R.S. does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.”

CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. Here, pursuant to the above-referenced telephone conversations, it was determined that issues with the ball joints were present prior to Service Contract acceptance.

It is stated in the service contract: “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a):                                                                                                          "COMPONENTS AND

EXPENSES NOT COVERED:  Components not listed regardless of failure.” The brake shoes,

alignment, tires, and parking brake cable are not listed as being covered on the Service Contract; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair.

CARS' service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverage. Therefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

After management review of the invoice supplied by the repair facility, in a goodwill gesture, CARS is willing to assist with the claim as follows: We are willing to assist with ball joints in the amount of $135.48 and the wheel parts/cylinders in the amount of $128.00. ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 4.7 hours to complete, and the customer's service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor CARS can assist with is $282.00. CARS is willing to also waive the $100.00 deductible applied to all claims. The total amount CARS is willing to assist with the claim is $545.48.

The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned allowances for replacement parts, we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the customer's witnessed and notarized signature if the customer is agreeable to CARS assistance with the January 23, 2015 mechanical claim in the amount of $545.48. Upon our receipt the notarized General Release, we will send a check directly to the customer in the amount of $545.48.

The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through April 20, 2015 or until the odometer register 191,971, whichever occurs first. Should his vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

1/30/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a vehicle at *** Autos in ** ***** ** Dec. 30, 2014. The dealer included a car protection plus 3 month warranty for repairs. The Check Engine light soon came on the vehicle shortly after I purchased the car. I took the car back to *** Auto for repairs and they claimed they had their mechanic repair it. The day I picked the truck (2004 GMC Yukon) back up the check engine light came on again. I then took the truck to my personal mechanic to have it checked out at ***** ********** ****** in ******* ** on 1/23/2014. Before I took it to ****** I received the warranty card in the mail and then I called Cars Protection Plus 1-800# and spoke with a claims rep and told them the problems I was having with the car, they told me I had a choice of having my own mechanic open a claim and going thru them for the repair or I could have the mechanic do the repairs first and pay for the cost and then Car Plus Protection would reimburse me for 50 % of the labor up to $60 per hour and 50 % of the parts when I sent them my proof of repairs. I went to pick the car up on Sat. 1/24/15 the bill was a total of $895.58 for parts and labor. I paid the repair bill and got a receipt. On 1/26/2015. I phoned Car Protection Plus and the representative then told me the repairs were done without their authorization and none of my expenses would be reimbursed to me and I only had the option to cancel the warranty in writing to receive a partial refund of the warranty cancellation. I feel that I have been misled, by Cars Protection Plus and this is a bad business practice and that I have been ripped off.

Desired Settlement: I feel Cars Protection Plus should honor the warranty and review my receipt and return to me 50% of the Labor and 50 % of the parts expense I paid upfront to have the car repaired at ****** ********** ******. I feel, if I have a warranty on a vehicle and if I go to the good faith of paying for the repairs upfront at a mechanic that I can trust then Cars Protection Plus should honor that and reimburse me. My mechanic told me that I would probably have an issue getting the warranty company to pay for any of the repairs and that more than likely they would try to get out of paying their portion. They use aftermarket or used parts that can cause further damage to the vehicle, since it is my vehicle, I should have the choice as to where I get the car repaired. Please help me resolve this problem with Car Protection Plus. I just bought a vehicle and less than 30 days of owning it I have had to spend over $800 in repair cost. I haven't even made the first car payment yet.

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2004 GMC YUKON VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I received your letter dated January 26, 2015, enclosing the customer’s concerns contained in the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on December 30, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on January 2, 2015 (the attached "Service Contract").

On January 21, 2015 at 10:06 a.m., the customer advised a CARS customer service representative in a recorded telephone call that the check engine light came on during the same date of vehicle purchase, December 30, 2014. Our customer service representative then reviewed the customer's service coverage and our claim procedures with him.

On January 26, 2015 at 9:53 a.m., the customer advised a CARS' customer service representative that he had his vehicle repaired and that he was advised on that he would be entitled to a reimbursement. We advised the customer that is not our claim procedure and that we would not have given him that information. We then reviewed our claim procedure with him several times. The customer was then transferred to the refund department.

On January 26, 2015 at 10:01 a.m., the customer advised a representative in our refund department that he believed he was told on January 23, 2015 that he could have his vehicle repaired, pay for it out of pocket and CARS would reimburse him for 50% of his expenses. He was again advised that this is not our policy. The customer advised CARS that he would like to be reimbursed for his Service Contract. CARS then advised the customer that he was eligible for a prorated refund. The customer requested to speak to a manager. The manager was not available to speak to the customer and the customer refused to leave a voicemail.

The above stated telephone calls are the only communication CARS received regarding the customer's mechanical issues prior to CARS' receiving the customer's BBB consumer complaint. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer’s service contract.

By his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract: "Paragraph 3(a): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility, within the continental United States, open to the public during normal business hours and capable to: perform tear-down to the point of component failure, determine the cause and extent of damage, and rebuild the component if CARS deems necessary. The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete. CARS reserves the right to have the repairs performed at a location other than the one you have selected.” In addition, it is also stated at Paragraph 3(b): “The repair facility MUST call CARS at 888-335-6838 to open a claim BEFORE any repairs have begun.” A CARS' customer service representative went over CARS' claims procedures during a January 21, 2015 telephone call.

The specific information on how to open a claim as stated above was also provided to the customer on his identification card (see attached) which CARS mailed to him after the approval of his Value Limited Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer did not follow the claim procedures outlined in his service contract or on his identification card to properly open a claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of his service contract.

The service contract states at Paragraph 1(c): “1. COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Any repair done without prior authorization from CARS. The service contract further states at 3(e) and at 3(g): “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate and obtain an authorization number BEFORE any repairs are begun” and "....No invoice will be processed without a valued authorization number, Your signature, repair facility's warranty on repairs (if applicable) and repair facility's identifying information.” The identification card also clearly states: "CARS Protection Plus will NOT be held responsible for paying any unauthorized repair invoices.” By requiring the claim procedures to be properly followed, CARS is able to calculate the money allowance if it is determined that the repair is covered under the service contract and it increases the probability that the vehicle would be fixed right the first time. Here, however, CARS was not given the opportunity to determine if the repairs would be covered and give authorization for the repair, prior to the repairs being performed to the customer's vehicle.

At no time did any representative of CARS advise the customer to have his vehicle repaired and that we would reimburse him afterwards for his expenses. All telephone calls between our customer service representatives and customers are documented by date, time and summary of the conversation.

Pursuant to ******** state statutes the customer is entitled to cancel his service contract with CARS and receive a prorated refund, less a 10% service fee, for the amount of money received from the selling dealer for the cost of the customer's service contract. Please advise if the customer is agreeable to a cancellation and refund. If so, the refund we will be mailed to the selling dealer who would then issue a check to the customer. By issuing the refund check to the dealer, it would enable them to also refund the customer any profit they received as well.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below

I was told by Cars Protection Plus Representative that if I chose to have my car repaired I would be reimbursed for 50% of the Labor and 50 % of approved parts.  I needed to get my vehicle out of the body shop so I would have a car to drive over the weekend since I was in a bind, therefore I paid the body shop thinking in good faith I would be able to use the warranty to recover part of my expenses.  I paid $895 towards the repair. The Cars Protection Plus Warranty is misleading and it was implied to me by both Cars Protection Plus Warranty and the dealer I would only be responsible for 50 % of repairs and labor.  The way the warranty is written, Cars Protection Plus can easily get out of doing any repairs to the vehicle, it does not specifically state that O2 Sensors is not a covered part, it list other parts that are covered and parts that are not and then gives them the opportunity to say any part not listed is not covered. I have decided to refer this to the ******** Attorney General Office of Consumer Protection to file a complaint.  ]

Regards,

**** ******

1/29/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We bought a warranty to cover transmission issues on a used vehicle. We purchased the warranty from the same dealer from I got the car. We picked the vehicle and park the car at home. After sixty (60) miles the car did not work, then we took the car to the garage and we were in shock when the mechanic guy told us that the transmission was broken but we were in calm because we trusted the warranty would pay the difference after we pay the deductible. However, we were wrong, the garage call us stating that the claim will not be covered because the car was repaired before. We are not mechanics how we would know that the car was repaired previously. We purchased the car and warranty in good faith hoping that both the car and warranty are good products. Unfortunately neither of them is useful. Car Protection is making huge money selling warranties but they DO NOT COVER. Ive realized that many people make a lot of complaints about Car Proctection. My question how *** **** ***** *and other states) allows Car Protection to run a business since they have not honored what they offer on contract. They are tricking to the people who in good faith is buying warranty.

Desired Settlement: Desired Settlement: We would like to have the warranty company cover the expenses to have the truck fixed, per their warranty that we paid for.

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID #********

2005 NISSAN XTERRA VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. *****

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 23, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on November 19, 2014 and on that same date she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). The customer’s Service Contract was received by CARS and approved with payment on December 2, 2014 (See attached "Service Contract").

On December 5, 2014 at 3:30 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility.

On December 9, 2014 at 11:23 a.m., the repair facility advised us that the torque converter came apart internally and shot metal shavings through the unit damaging the valve body and the clutches. The repair facility advised that they would send an estimate to CARS.

After receiving the information provided by the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer's vehicle was necessary to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle. The independent inspection occurred on December 11, 2014.

The independent inspector found that the clutches were dark, overheated and material was missing from them. The valve body showed signs of metal contamination. The independent inspector had the repair facility's technician drain residual fluid from the torque converter. The drained fluid was milky in color and consistent with coolant contamination. The independent inspector examined the cooling system and found that the coolant was in good condition and there were no signs of any intermix. The radiator looked to be brand new and was not a Nissan radiator. There were no signs of any impact damage or external leaks.

The independent inspector found that the failure was consistent with a radiator/transmission cooler failure which resulted in coolant contamination to the transmission and subsequent damage. The radiator replacement and the internal transmission failure pre-existed the customer's purchase of the vehicle on November 19, 2014.

 

On December 11, 2014 CARS advised both the repair facility and the customer that we were unable to assist with the December 5, 2014 transmission claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract. The failure to the customer's vehicle was caused by previous coolant contamination due to a previous improper repair.

By the customer's signature on her Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The service contract states at Paragraph 1 (i):    “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any

previous improper repair” is not covered. Based on the findings of the independent inspector, CARS determined that the transmission failure was caused by an improper previous repair due to the transmission and torque converter not being flushed when the radiator was replaced prior to the customer purchasing the vehicle on November 19, 2014. The failure of the radiator/transmission cooler caused coolant contamination to the transmission and subsequent damage to the customer's vehicle. The radiator replacement and internal transmission failure pre-exist the customer's purchase of the vehicle on November 19, 2014.

Pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and your financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract and therefore, we are unable to assist with the December 5, 2014 claim for the reasons stated above.

The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through March 2, 2015. Should her vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the service contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Apparently, there is no way that customer could win. CARS Protection is taking advantage of system and unfortunately the system does not do too much to help us. I read a lot of complaints about this company. ( I regret myself not do it before I pay for it). They claimed it was inspected by the "independent" inspector. The independent inspector is actually someone who received his paid from Cars Protection , therefore it cannot be called independent, because "coincidentally" for any inspection, the inspector provides the same diagnostic: "Not to be covered". In other words, the inspector works in function who pays his services CARS Protection, which obviously is less than CARS could pay its obligation. In order to verify if CARS Protection is honoring the contract I would like to get the records about how many claims they receive and how many of them are actually paid. If my assumption is correct then we can get the conclusion the Cars Protection is taken advantage of business and the system by selling "insurances" that they know in advance that they are NOT going to cover.  When someone buys a used car, the customer cannot checked the car internally, that is the reason why we (the customers) buy a warranty to prevent any issue. However, Cars Protection  knows that and selling "insurance" that they know in advance they are not going to cover because their "independents" inspectors are going to say the same thing. It is a good business, isn't it? Unfortunately, we, the customers are naive buying this type of insurance for getting nothing, we just loose our money. I formally request the information from the "independent" inspector, name and license. Also, I would like to get from Cars Protection the information about how many claims were received and how many of them were actually paid them. Otherwise I will take this issue to ****** Consumer Affairs complaint, General Attorney of *** ****, media (newspaper and television), and social webs to share this type of business.

Thanks in advance,
Regards,
***** ****** ******

1/22/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I recently purchased a vehicle at a dealership that sells used cars. Because it was used, I purchased a 24 month, unlimited miles extended service contract along with it, just in case something went wrong. Two weeks after I bought the vehicle, the brakes went out and I tie rod broke. I paid for these to be fixed out of my pocket. Same week the speedometer kept reading wrong. The shortly after the gas gauge was reading incorrectly and I would run out of gas even the gauge showed more than a quarter full. I began calling around and was having trouble finding anyone that would accept the warranty because I was told the company does not settle up on the claims as they should.On January 14th, 2015 I was driving home from work and the headlights kept getting dimmer. The battery light came on and the vehicle eventually quit because the battery was drained. I left the vehicle and the next morning call my insurance company to have it towed to a dealership that had been trying to get a claim authorized to fix the speedometer and fuel level and pressure sensors. The dealership said the thermostat and alternator also needed to be replaced. At that time, in order to get all the components fixed, I was going to have to pay $1990.00 plus tax. The components and services charges as follows: Alternator, $395; Thermostat, $295; Fuel Level sensor, $525; Fuel pressure sensor, $325; Dash Cluster, $450. I would expect that all of the aforementioned parts would have been included, however I was told that the only thing they would cover is the alternator and the service fee for the thermostat that Cars Plus would ship a used thermostat to the dealership. The thermostat shipment would take 2 days, and in the interim, Cars Plus will not pay for the rental car. I asked the dealership to hold off and contacted the dealership where I bought the vehicle and I also called Cars Protection Plus. Cars Protection Plus stated the parts were not covered because it doesnt affect the vehicle from operating. I explained that I run out of gas, even though there is gas in the tank. I commute more that 140 miles a day for work and it can be a risk to me to be broke down in a rural area in sub zero temperatures. The person on the phone stated it did not matter that the parts and service are not covered. In addition, I contacted the original dealership where the vehicle and service contract was purchased, I was told they were not aware it wouldn't cover those parts and they would call their rep and see what they could do. There was not an offer to stand by the vehicle they sold to me and pay for any of the parts.I have read the contract multiple times and feel that the company that is selling service contracts are using deceptive practices. They are selling a contract that is basically worthless. When did it become necessary that I will have to take a lawyer with me to by a car? I feel I have been cheated. I put $3000 down on the vehicle, added another 1200 plus to have a warranty and have a vehicle that is not running and I have only owned it since the last week in October 2014.

Desired Settlement: I would like all the parts I had to pay for reimbursed to me in full. Or a full refund on the service contract.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 19, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 27, 2014. On that same date she also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 29, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

On January 14, 2015, at 4:32 p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. Since the vehicle was not at the repair facility, we advised the repair facility to open a new claim when the vehicle was present. CARS then closed the claim.

On the following day, January 15, 2015 at 2:36 p.m. the same repair facility telephoned CARS to open a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility advised that the vehicle was experiencing dash cluster, fuel level sensor, headlight, thermostat, fuel tank pressure sensor, rear shocks, alternator and battery issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

That same date at 3:00 p.m., we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract as follows: We could supply an alternator for $127.48 and the thermostat for $20.66. We would also allow $14.00 for fluid. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 1.8 hours to complete and the customer’s Service Contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $108.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $170.14, once the deductible was applied. We then advised Jimmy that CARS was not able to assist with the repair of the dash cluster, fuel level sensor, headlight, fuel tank pressures sensor, rear shocks and battery, because some of the repairs are non-covered components under the customer's Service Contract and some of the repairs (i.e. headlights, rear shocks and battery) are maintenance items and all would be the customer's responsibility to repair.

On January 19, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would take the money allowance for the claim. An authorization number was then given for the repair. Once we receive the final invoice verifying that the repairs are completed, CARS will pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.

By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. It is stated in the service contract: "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components.” and "under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure.” The dash cluster, fuel level sensor, headlight, fuel tank pressure sensor, rear shocks and battery are not listed for coverage; therefore, they are the responsibility of the customer to repair.

Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.

Therefore, CARS was correct when we were only able to offer assistance for the alternator and thermostat for all the reasons stated above; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the remaining repairs pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.

Additionally, the customer states in her complaint that she is not happy that she was not given any rental benefits, and also is requesting a refund of her Service Contract. CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. No state statute in Michigan requires CARS to refund service contracts; therefore, the customer is not entitled to any refund at this time.

The customer's service contract states under Terms and conditions at Paragraph 5 (a through d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated. C.A.R.S. shall refund to the dealer a portion of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for your Service Contract on a monthly prorated basis, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), as long as no claims have been made against the vehicle. If a vehicle is altered or modified after purchase and if a claim has been made or paid, the Service Contract is cancelled and no refund shall be issued; and If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at anytime by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid."

Also, the customer’s service contract states under: "COVERED COMPONENTS: RENTAL BENEFITS: The Service Contract Holder will reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide to repair or replace the covered component..." Here, since Mitchell OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should only take 1.8 hours to complete, the customer is not entitled to any rental benefits pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. I believe CARS uses deceptive practices when selling their extended services and should be held accountable. 



Regards,

******* *******

1/21/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We bought a warranty to cover power train issues on a used vehicle. We picked the vehicle up it had intermitten heat issues. The dealer we bought the vehicle from, tried to make it right for us by replacing the thermostat in the vehicle, because the heat was working intermittenly, the dealer thought that was the problem. We picked the truck up a few days later and it seemed to be ok for the ride home. The next day we were having the same problem with the heat. We took it to another garage to check out the problem. The garage said they checked the truck and bled lines. The diagnostics showed that it was probably a blown head gasket, but they wouldn't know that unless they tore the truck apart. We took the truck to a garage that had more experience with the warranty company. We received a call from the warranty company saying they would review the claim. The garage called us about an hour later stating that the claim will not be covered because it was a preexsisting condition. We are not mechanics and assumed the problem was with the heat, since it was working randomly. The warranty company said that their warranty only started the day it was approved it, which was six days after the warranty was actually purchased. Yes we knew there was a problem with the heat, but there was no way we knew that there was a blown head gasket until the problem was diagnosed almost a week and a half after we purchased the truck. The warranty company is now refusing to honor the warranty that was purchased.

Desired Settlement: We would like to have the warranty company cover the the expense to have the truck fixed, per their warranty we paid for.

Business Response:

RE:       COMPLAINT ID *********

2003 FORD F150 VIN (Last 8): ******** OUR FILE NO.: ******

Dear Ms. ****:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 30, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 6, 2014. On that same date he applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles) which was received by CARS and approved with payment on December 10. 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On December 30, 2014 at 9:45 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On December 30, 2014 at 10:06 a.m., in a recorded telephone call with a CARS customer service representative, the customer stated that his vehicle started experiencing heating issues when leaving the dealership on the date of purchase of December 6, 2014. The customer then stated that the selling dealer replaced the thermostat, but the customer felt however, that this did not fix the problem. During this same conversation the customer also stated he took the vehicle to another repair facility on December 13, 2014 where they did a pressure check. The new repair facility advised that the head gasket was bad and they also noticed the vehicle had a new water pump. The customer advised that he checked the vehicle's oil which looked white and milky on the oil fill cap.

On December 30, 2014 at 10:34 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the head gasket. The vehicle was losing coolant, oil was dripping from the rear of the motor, a light was out in the dash, and the head gasket was leaking oil and coolant. During that telephone conversation we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the vehicle.

On December 30, 2014 at 11:06 a.m. the customer was advised by CARS that the head gasket failure was in progress prior to CARS’ acceptance of the customer's service contract application. It was explained thoroughly to the customer that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the vehicle.

Please be advised that by the customer's signature on his service contract application, he read, understood, and agreed to the covered components terms and conditions. Directly above the customer's signature it states, as well as under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 2 (c): "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) This application is received by CARS Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase.”

Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraphs 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS. Protection Plus, Inc. ("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are NOT covered. CARS does NOT warrant the vehicle at the time of purchase."

In summary, during the December 30, 2014 recorded telephone call, the customer stated that he began to experience mechanical issues on the same date of the vehicle purchase. Also, his consumer complaint verified that the vehicle was experiencing these issues at the time of purchase.

Please be advised that CARS service contracts are to be utilized for failures that occur during the coverage period, not for failures that are present on the date of purchase. Here, even though the claim was not opened until December 30, 2014, the customer's head gasket issues were present and in progress when the customer purchased the vehicle on December 6, 2014.

CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. Therefore, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the December 30, 2014, head gasket claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

However, the customer has service contract coverage on his vehicle through March 10, 2015 or 149,477 miles, whichever occurs first. Should his vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the service contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


1/7/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: ** *On October 6,2014 I purchased a used 2001 Dodge Ram truck from ******** used car dealer in ********* *** The dealer suggested that I get a used car warranty for the vehicle which was with C.A.R.S. Protection Plus. It was purchased for $399.00 plus tax which came to a total of $427.00 for 3 month protection. I was given written confirmation that I was covered on from the company on October 15, 2014. About a week later I took the truck to the mechanic to check a noise I heard while driving on the highway. The mechanic stated that the racket pinion and transmission both has issues. The company approved the racket pinion but once the transmission was mentioned they stated they need to come inspect the vehicle. It took about two weeks for someone to come from C.A.R.S. Protection Plus to inspect the vehicle. At that time the told the mechanic that they were denying the claim because the tires were too big. This is how the vehicle was purchased with these tires. Apparently the original tires from the dodge dealer when the car was new were a different number but the actual height is 16" and the tires on there now are 16". I feel that I was mislead in purchasing this vehicle and warranty since as soon as a problem occurred they refused to pay. Now I am stuck with a car thats not working and a mechanic bill to pay. I called them spoke to someone named ***** and was treated rude and in an unprofessional manner. He stated that the car dealership should had never sold us the truck with that warranty. I have already lost 4 weeks of work due to not having the vehicle. Now I am stuck with a bill that I can't afford due to not having being able to work.

Desired Settlement: I would like for them to honor the warranty and pay for the repairs. As now the mechanic has to be paid. I purchased the vehicle with warranty in case a problem should arise or I would had never purchased it. Sincerely,Still walking and in debt ** **

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 24, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 6, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 15, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

On October 30, 2014 at 3:58 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential and transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On November 5, 2014, at 9:22 a.m. and at 10:46 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was wear and tear to the customer's vehicle. We advised the repair facility that we needed to know the exact cause of failure to the customer's vehicle.

On November 5, 2014 at 11:02 a.m., the repair facility advised that the seal in the overdrive drum failed creating a loss of pressure. The clutches were burnt and the rear differential spider gears were chipped. The pinion seal had a slight leak. There were no signs of overheating.

After the repair facility gave CARS the cause of failure and after we received the repair facility’s estimate for the repair for the customer's vehicle, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the customer's vehicle was necessary to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage.

The independent inspection occurred on November 10, 2014. During the inspection of the customer’s vehicle the independent inspector found the customer's vehicle to be altered/modified with oversized tires.

On November 10, 2014 at 1:14 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the customer's claim was denied and his service contract denied due to oversized tires on the vehicle. We then explained that the customer would eligible for a full refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer if the customer signed a General Release.

On November 11, 2014 at 9:22 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and spoke to our customer service manager. Our customer service manager went over the terms and conditions of the service contract and advised that altered/modified vehicles void the service contract. CARS also went over the General Release with the customer. During this telephone call our customer service manager had to warn the customer that this was a professional telephone call when the customer began to use inappropriate language.

A General Release (see attached) for the full amount that CARS received from the selling dealer was sent to the customer on November 11, 2014 for his notarized signature. As of said date, CARS has not received the signed and notarized General Release back from the customer. Upon our receipt of the fully executed and notarized General Release, CARS will send the refund check to the selling dealer. Since CARS' service contract are sold wholesale to the dealers, by sending the refund check to the selling dealer, this allows the dealer to refund his portion of the monies to the customer.

CARS believed that the customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on October 15, 2014. It was not until the processing of the October 30, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. oversize tires) of the customer’s vehicle are not according to the manufacturer's specifications. In addition, the alterations/modifications can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

By the customer's signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(d) and Paragraph 2(f) and 2(d): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Vehicles that are modified or altered from the original manufacturer's specifications, including but not limited to the following modifications: frame, suspension or body lift kits, wheels/tires (not to OEM specifications), emission system, exhaust system, engine, transmission and drive axle, regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed." Also, "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the service contract." Additionally, "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by CARS." To reiterate, it was not until the processing of the October 30, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the vehicle were made by the customer after the date of vehicle purchase. As stated above, the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle are not


according to the manufacturer's specifications and can affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

CARS relies on the information provided to us by the dealers and/or repair facilities, since we cannot inspect every vehicle that has a service contract with us. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service contract immediately. The customer’s service is void and the customer does not have service coverage under any of CARS service contracts.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

12/30/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Complaint Details Unavailable
12/8/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: WE BOUGHT A USED 2005 FORD FROM ***** *** WE HAD STARTER PROBLEM IN OCT. HAD IT TOWED TO ***** **, THEY SAID IT STARTED EVERYTIME THEY TRIED. PICKED IT UP FROM THEM. IN ONE MONTH WE HAD SAME PROBLEM, TOWED TO ********* **** ON THANKSGIVING. FRIDAY WHEN GOOD PLACES RESUME WORK, **** SAID IT NEEDED A STARTER FOR $418.12. I CALLED C A R S NO ANSWER SO I LEFT A MESSAGE ON THE PHONE GAVE CONTRACT #******** WHERE THE CAR WAS and PHONE NUMBER, AND THE AMOUNT. PEOPLE CAN NOT LIVE WITHOUT A CAR FOR 4 DAYS. I HOPE YOU COULD HELP ME. THEY SAY I HAD TO HAVE AN OK FROM THEM BEFORE THE WORK TO BE DONE.

Desired Settlement: FULL OR PART OF IT

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 2, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: Our records show the complainant to be the boyfriend of the owner of the CARS' service contract for the above-referenced vehicle. On November 12, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and was accepted with payment by CARS (the attached "Service Contract”).

On October 31, 2013 at 11:02 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing starter issues. On November 14, 2013 CARS paid the repair facility $111.75 via credit card towards a starter and labor pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The starter has a warranty through October 31, 2016 as evidenced on the attached invoice.

CARS agree that repairs to vehicles are needed even during holidays. If a message is left by the repair facility that a claim needs to be open during holidays, a return telephone call is made to the repair facility on the next business day. All voice messages left during non-business hour are processed accordingly.

CARS has no record of any message being left on our voice mail by a repair facility or the customer regarding the starter issues with the customer's vehicle. However, on December 3, 2014, CARS issued check no. ******, in the amount of $52.50 to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract.

Here, the starter supplied during the October 31, 2014 claim has a three (3) year parts warranty; therefore, the customer should follow-up with the repair facility in regards to the repair facility’s three (3) year warranty on parts.

Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

Regards,

**** ******
 
  I ACCEPT IT IN PART. I DID CALL AND LEFT MESSAGE ON NOV. 28 DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING THE HOLIDAY.  AND I ALSO CALLED ***** ** WHO REPLACED THE STARTER IN 2013 which at the end of OCT 2014 IT WAS TOWED THERE FOR THE SAME PROBLEM, they said that it started every time they did and that they CAN NOT HELP ME WITH IT THIS TIME.  SO I HAVE TO FILE ONE AGAINST ***** **.  BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID TO BRING THEM THE OLD STARTER...     I HOPE TO SEE THE CHECK CARS SENT TO US SOON!    THANK YOU

12/3/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My warranty calls out for "Master cylinder; wheel cylinders, calipers, ABS hydraulic components, ABS speed sensors, and ABS control module." The part that went bad in my 2005 Lexus SC430 was the brake booster pump, part number 47070-30060 which cost $1500.55 plus $300 installation. This is a sub-assembly of the ABS hydraulic pump system. If the garage had asked to replace the entire ABS system to be replaced,it would have been covered. Because the request was to only replace the bad portion, the brake booster pump, a sub-system, the claim was declined, costing over $1500.I have a diagram of the entire system and the sub-system that had to be replaced from the garage, which I emailed to Cars Protection. They still denied the claim.

Desired Settlement: 1. Would like Cars Protection to be held accountable so others are not harmed. 2. Would like to have the claim covered.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 7, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on April 17, 2013. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 17, 2013 (See attached Service Contract).

On March 26, 2014 at 9:27 a.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing brake booster pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

On March 26, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., we advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the brake booster pump claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. CARS advised the repair facility that the brake booster pump is not part of the master cylinder or the Anti-Lock Brake System.

On March 26, 2014 at 1:31 p.m., we advised the customer's friend that the brake booster pump is not listed as a covered component under her service contract. On March 27, 2014 at 4:53 p.m., we went over the service contract coverage with the customer and explained that listed components on the service contract are covered under the service contract. We again advised that the brake booster pump is not listed as a covered component on her service contract.

By the customer's signature on her Ultimate Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of her service contract. It is stated in the customer's service contract:        “COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE

COMPONENTS." and under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the brake booster pump is not listed as a covered component on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of this part.

The brake booster pump and the master cylinder are two (2) separate components and can be repaired/replaced independently of each other. In addition, the brake booster pump is not part of the Anti-Lock Brake System and can be repaired/replaced independently of the Anti-Lock Brake System. The brake booster pump is not listed under the covered components on customer’s service contract.

Furthermore, under the customer’s service contract, CARS IS not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the service contract holder what is specifically covered under the service contract.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract and therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the March 26, 2014 brake booster pump claim.

However, the customer does have service contract coverage on her vehicle through May 17, 2017. Should the customer incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her service contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the customer’s Ultimate Plus Service Contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Please see the attached Parts List. According to the mechanic that handled the case as well as my Engineer Partner (friend as mentioned in their letter), the Brake Booster Pump IS a subassembly of the Master Cylinder.  Had we simply asked to replace the entire Master Cylinder, which is covered, the Brake Booster Pump would have been covered.  Because we made an attempt to be fair, we advised Cars Plus that it was this sub-assembly, a part within the Mater Cylinder, that had to be replaced.  
Regards,

**** *****

11/20/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought a 2004 dodge ram 1500 with a cars protection plus warrenty good for 1 year 15000 miles i had it 3 months when i had a problem with the motor only put 2600 miles on it had it towed to shop i was told i had to pay to tear motor down which i did the mechanic found that there was a bad piston they asked him to measure heads to see if they eere warped they were not they asked for pictures he did they sent a inspector out to confirm what the mechanic said he did now they want to know exactly what caused the piston to go bad the mechanic said there is no way to tell exactly so they wont fix

Desired Settlement: Used motor installed

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 10, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased his 2004 Dodge 1500 on April 24, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on April 28, 2014 (See attached Service Contract],

On July 21, 2014 at 10:23 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. The repair facility advised that the vehicle was towed in on July 19, 2014 or July 20, 2014. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle was leaking oil from every opening in the bottom of the block and that the customer claimed to have put oil in on July 20, 2014. We then went over our claim procedures in detail with the repair facility, including specifically advising that the vehicle must be torn down to component failure to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage, all which was the customer's financial responsibility pursuant to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The repair facility was to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down the vehicle and contact us with their cause of failure, extent of damage and estimate, prior to any work being performed.

On July 21, 2014 at 11:20 a.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising that on July 18, 2014 blue smoke began to come out of the exhaust He stated that he did not add any oil to his vehicle and had been unaware of the leaks in his engine.

On July 23, 2014 at 8:58 a.m., we received a return telephone call from the repair facility. During that telephone call we explained that the repair facility would need to contact the customer and obtain his permission to tear down his vehicle to the cause of failure.

Approximately, one (1) month later, on August 20, 2014, the repair facility telephoned CARS and advised that the #8 piston had melted at the ring land. He further advised that the fuel injector or operation in an overheated condition could have caused the melting. The repair facility advised that they would call CARS with the warpage readings.
On September 4, 2014 at 10:43 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the head was not warped and they believed that something came apart in in the #8 cylinder. The seat had not dropped in the head. On September 8, 2014, the repair facility emailed photos of the spark plug, cylinder and piston to CARS for review.

After review of the photos and conflicting information provided by the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection was necessary to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle. The independent inspection occurred on September 9, 2014.

The independent inspector found the #7 piston detonated at two (2) areas. The cylinder wall has a heavy amount of scoring and a heavy amount of metal transfer at the combustion chamber. The electrode at the #7 spark plug was melted and it appeared that the threaded portion of the plug had started to melt as well. The left cylinder head was warped .002 when checked with a machined straight edge. The cylinder walls had no visible heat discoloration. There was a long term oil leak at the front crank seal. There was a heavy amount of oil and road grime coating the timing cover. There was no sludge in the engine and no intermix in the residual oil. The codes could not be retrieved as the battery was dead and had to be jumped to light up the odometer. The independent inspector found that although the detonation and sub damage at the #7 piston was shown, the cause of the detonation was not shown or demonstrated.

On September 10, 2014 at 11:39 a.m., we called the repair facility and advised that we were unable to offer assistance with the repair of customer’s vehicle because the repair facility had not demonstrated that a covered component had failed and caused the detonation. The repair facility stated that it could be ten [10] different things and it was not right that we would ask him for the exact cause of failure. Our claim adjustor then explained that when the claim was opened, we went over our claim procedures in detail and providing CARS with the cause of failure and the extent of damage was thoroughly explained to the repair facility pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract.

^ Later that same day, CARS advised the customer that we could not move forward with the claim until the repair facility provided us with a cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicle.

On September 11, 2014 at 1:40 p.m., the repair facility advised us that they wanted the customer's

vehicle removed from the facility; however, the customer did not want it moved since removal would

cause the claim to be closed. We explained that the July 21, 2014 engine claim would be closed if the

vehicle was moved from the repair facility; however, the customer has service coverage through April 28,

2015. Therefore, a new claim would need to be opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle at a new repair facility.

By the customer s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's service contract states at Paragraph 3(c) and fd]: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. You are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." "If C.A.R.S. inspects the vehicle and it is not disassembled to allow verification of the cause and extent of the failure, you will be responsible for all re-
Please be advised that CARS includes teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics for all claims in order for CARS to determine exactly what caused the failure and the extent of amage to the vehicle. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not and are not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis of the customer's vehicle.
Stated more accurately, we were and are still only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage to ensure that the failed component is covered.

In addition, we would like to point out here that not only was the repair facility unable to give us a cause of failure for the customer's vehicle, the repair facility informed CARS that the detonation was at the #8 piston. However, the independent inspector found that the detonation was at the #7 piston.

Therefore, as you can see from all the above information provided, CARS has timely and properly processed this claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract. Any fault for delay in time, improper diagnosis and/or failure to properly diagnose all the mechanical issues with the customer's vehicle rest solely with the repair facility.

Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Additionally, we would like to point out here that detonation failures are generally related to fuel or fuel system failures. The customer's Power Train Service Contract does not cover any fuel system failure. If the customer wishes to open a new claim at a new repair facility which can demonstrate that a covered component under the customer's service contract has failed, CARS would be more than happy to move forward with that claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
***** ** *********
General Counsel



 

Consumer Response: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

First of all a blown piston is a blown piston 7/8 some vehicles it would 7 some would be 8 still the motor is shot what caused it is anyones guess could be a number off things they also stat that there wad a long term leak in front seal ok i will say no way i never had to add any oil to the vehicle.as for heads i trust the mechanic the inspector never spoke to him of asked any questions they just dont want to pay the 3500 to put a motor in id be happy with half whats the next step id ******** thankyou ***** ******

11/10/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: While I know this warranty product does not cover everything after reading it, I feel they made an error in not covering items when the mechanic called them. He called in reference to a valve cover leaking oil, a radiator leaking and an oil pan leaking. I knew the radiator wasn't covered, but the operator at CARS Protection said no oil leaks are covered. I paid out of pocket for all repairs.When I got home I re-checked the warranty & valve covers and oil pans ARE covered. The "leaking oil" loophole is bogus, especially for oil pans. All oil pans do is hold oil! Nothing else is going to leak out of it!I'm out $573.10 in non-covered "covered" items.Plus, this company needs to tell their sales people (used car dealers) that they need to stop saying this warranty covers everything. The one from whom I purchased this said as such & after reading before signing I saw the minimal coverage (so I only bought a 30 day warranty). I know the used car dealers get commission from selling these warranties, but they need to be told to stop overselling what the warranty says.

Desired Settlement: I would like reimbursement of the $573.10 I paid out-of-pocket for items listed as "Covered" in their warranty.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 3, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased her 2002 Kia Sportage on October 6, 2014. On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Independence Service Contract (Month to Month Recurring Debit) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 7, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

On October 30, 2014 at 4:28 p.m., a repair facility telephoned CARS' customer service department and advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing a radiator leak, and a valve cover gasket issue. We advised that these components were non-covered components under the customer's service contract. The repair facility then put the customer on the telephone with CARS. We then went over the customer's service coverage with her.

The above stated telephone call was the only communication CARS received regarding the customer’s mechanical issues. No claims were properly opened by any repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the claims procedures outlined on the customer's service contract.

By her signature, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the customer's service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS.” and at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the repair facility advised a CARS customer service representative of the following mechanical issues with the customer's vehicle: radiator leak and a valve cover gasket issue. These components are not listed as covered components on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of these components even if a claim would be properly opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

The customer’s service contract states: "COVERED COMPONENTS: SEALS & GASKETS: Seals and gaskets are covered only required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component. Additionally cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks. Oil/combustion leaks are not covered and at Paragraph 1 (r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." Although our records do not show that the oil pan issues were discussed by the repair facility, leaks, specifically oil leaks are not covered under the customer's service contract.


Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components. The service contract is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and her financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

For all the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to assist with the repairs to the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, a claim was not opened by the repair facility, and all the mechanical issues addressed by the repair facility with our customer service representative were non-covered items under the customer's service.


When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

When a component breaks, it's going to leak.  The reply is a loophole so they don't have to pay anything.  The valve cover broke & thus leaked, but they don't cover it because of a leak.  The oil pan was cracked & thus leaked, but hey, it has a leak & we don't cover that! AN OIL PAN HOLDS OIL SO IF IT BREAKS IT'S GOING TO LEAK!  This loophole gets them out of paying for ANYTHING because any item on a car that breaks is going to leak.  Just go over all the complaints here & see none were closed satisfactorily to the warranty-holder.

The seller of these warranties the used car dealers - how much do THEY get per policy sold??), oversell the worth of these things & the buyer thinks they're getting a solid warranty, but go though the logic of all their "exclusions" & you'll see they can deny paying for anything!

How they can get an A+ rating here  is beyond comprehension because, again, go though all the complaints here & none are resolved in the complainants  favor.  After having this issue I did search on the internet & having known all I've found out about this company, I wouldn't have wasted the money & time dealing with this company.  I would also like to see a "Claim Paid/Claim Denied" ratio...I bet it's really lopsided!

Whatever comes of this, so be it, but I am filing a Consumer Complaint with the Office of the Attorney General here in NJ and in Pennsylvania (which already sued them in 2004 - I guess they didn't learn!).


Regards,

********* ******

11/7/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I recently purchased a used car with a 3 month, 4,500 mile warranty issued by Cars Protection Plus. Well within the warranty period, the car (Subaru Legacy Outback) required head gasket replacement. As I needed the car, I had it repaired at a local repair facility and paid for the repair.Contacting Cars Protection Plus, I was told that the dealer where I purchased the car must submit the receipt for the repairs that the car needed, which I thought was somewhat odd seeing that the dealer is now a third party who provided the car and the warranty. Cars Protection Plus (CPP) remains steadfast in telling me that the receipt for repair must come from the dealer where I purchased the car and providing no other means to honor their contract. I hold that the dealer, who is the issuer and provider of the contract and automobile are no longer part of the process and that all and any dealings should be between the issuer of the warranty and myself. The bottom line is that currently, I have a worthless guarantee and may, barring no response in this venue, to seek litigation by other means and hold CPP in breach of contract.

Desired Settlement: All of the $1,600 for the work that should have been covered by this warranty.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 15, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On September 23, 2014 at 10:23 a.m., CARS telephoned the customer in response to an email sent by the customer advising that his vehicle was leaking coolant and had timing belt, water pump and gasket issues. During that telephone call, we thoroughly searched our database and could not find any record of the selling dealer ever submitting to CARS a service contract application with payment for the above-referenced vehicle. We also advised that the selling dealer could still submit the service contract application with payment and proof of repair. We then referred the customer to the selling dealer.

Later that same day, CARS received the customer's service contract application; however, the service contract application was rejected because we were previously notified that the customer's vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance.

On September 23, 2014, we advised both the customer and the selling dealer in writing that the customer's service contract application was rejected. We also advised that proof of repairs would be required upon resubmission for possible approval by CARS. Copies of both letters are attached for your review. At no time did CARS accept any monies from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract application.

On October 3, 2014 at 8:50 a.m., CARS telephoned the customer in response to an email sent by the customer advising us that his vehicle now repaired. We advised the customer that the selling dealer must resubmit the service contract application, payment, and proof of repairs to CARS for possible approval. We then referred the customer back to the selling dealer.

On October 8, 2014 at 2:10 p.m., the customer advised us that the head gasket has been replaced on his vehicle. We then went over the rejection letter and advised the customer that the selling dealer must resubmit the service contract application, payment, and proof of repairs to CARS for possible approval. We then referred him back to the selling dealer.

On October 9, 2014 the letter sent advising the service contract application rejection to the customer was returned to CARS as undeliverable. Please see attachment.

It was also thoroughly explained to the customer during the above-referenced telephone calls that if CARS was made aware of a mechanical failure, prior to the dealer submitting for acceptance the service contract application and payment, CARS would reject and send back the service contract application with payment. At that time we would require proof of repairs before possible acceptance of said service contract application. In addition, if the dealer submitted a service contract application thirty (30) days or more after the purchase date of the vehicle, CARS would reject/send back the service contract application with payment and require an inspection before possible approval.

Please also be advised that by the customer’s signature on his service contract application, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. Directly below the customer's signature, it clearly states:                                                                               "The Service

Contract Goes into effect when this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc." In addition, the service contract application clearly states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: "Component failures that occur before C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. ("C.A.R.S.") approves this Service Contract Application are not covered. C.A.R.S. does not warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase.” The service contract also states at 2(d): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S." Since CARS was notified that the customer's vehicle was in need of repair prior to service contract acceptance and no monies were accepted by CARS, the customer's vehicle currently does not have coverage under any of CARS' service contracts. Therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle.

Until CARS receives service contract applications with payment, we have no information that the customers even purchased a CARS service contract. It is the responsibility of the dealer to submit the service contract application with payment for approval and also the customers’ responsibility to contact CARS if they do not receive notification that their service contract was approved.

CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to the dealers and it is the dealer's responsibility to submit the service contract application with the required paperwork for service contract approval. CARS does not sell its service contracts to the public; therefore, until service contract application approval, the dealer is responsible to furnish CARS with all appropriate information for our review of the service contract applications.

CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect on the day they are received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. Since CARS never received or approved a service contract application with payment from the selling dealer, the customer's


vehicle does not have coverage under any of CARS’ service contracts. Any further issues regarding this matter are between the customer and the selling dealer.

I hope this information is helpful to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

***** ** ********* General Counsel

11/7/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 8/1/14 I purchased a Gray 2005 Jeep Cherokee from ****** *** ****** ***** for $7,495 + a CARS Protection Plus Warranty for $1,195. I put a down payment of $2400. On 8/3/14 Had to have road assistance come to my sons camp **** ****** ** ******** ** ***** to jump my vehicle. On 8/8/14 I had to have my car towed again from ***** ******* *** ******** ** ********** ** *****. Had my car towed to ***s auto and the mechanic stated there was a the short in the wires to the starter. They repaired it and the cost was $40.00. (PAID BY ME)On 8/15/14 I had to have it towed from my complex to ****** ********** ***** *** ******** *** ******** ** *****. Diagnosis: Timing chain cover gasket was bad and was leaking, Water Pump (bad & replaced). Cost to repair $385.03(Pd by me) + $171.12 (CARS) = $556.15 Total Cost10/9/14 Was driving my car out of parking lot on my way to work and car stopped in the middle of street. Had car towed to ****** ********** ***** *** ******** *** ******** ** ******Warranty company said that the engine had to be torn down to access and determined engine problem then me know if they would cover the repair. Engine had to be removed and disassembled. Finding: the crank shift Timing Gear Sprocket Key has broken off causing the Timing Chain not to turn and causing severe damage to the LT and RT cylinder heads and they recommend to replace ENGINE.TOTAL COST $3,485.50 (Parts and labor)After reading through the C.A.R.S Protection Plus warranty I am convinced that the dealer and the warranty company have conspired to work together to do as little with regards to repairs. There was a clear breakdown of Covered Components under the Engine/Fuel System. As a consumer I have been preyed upon by both the warranty company and the car dealership and am left with a vehicle that does not work , I still have to make payments on the vehicle, warranty was financed and is being paid as a part of the monthly car payment, and the repair facility has to be paid.

Desired Settlement: As a resolve I would like to have the CARS Protection Plus warranty pay the cost of these repairs. And be given a rental car which was supposed to be covered under the warranty when repairs were warranted, totally covered by this warranty until the repairs are done. The repair facility said that it could be anywhere from one to two weeks before my car is done with repairs. I have been without a vehicle since 10/9/14.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 17, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. CARS previously responded directly to the customer. Attached please find CARS' response. We stand by our original decision and are unable to offer any further assistance with the October 9, 2014 engine claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
____________________________________________________

 

 

I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: Our records show that on August 1, 2014, you purchased the above-referenced vehicle from ****** *** ******. On that same date, you also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on August 8, 2014 (the attached Service Contract).

Since the inception of your service contract two (2) claims have been opened by repair facilities on behalf of your vehicle as follow:

FIRST CLAIM: On August 15, 2014 at 10:40 a.m., a claim was called in by **** at ****** **** ***** advising that your vehicle was experiencing water pump issues. We then went over our claim procedures. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply a water pump for $43.12 and allow $20.00 toward fluids for the

repair. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.8 hours to complete, and your service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $108.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $71.12, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $8.00 towards labor or pay $71.12 towards the repair of your choice. You chose to take the cash allowance toward the repair of your vehicle. On August 20, 2014 after receiving the final repair invoice, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $71.12 via check. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On October 9, 2014 at 1:36 p.m., a claim was called in by **** at ****** **** ***** advising that your vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures and advised **** to obtain your permission to tear down your vehicle to the point of failure and call or fax us with the repair facility's findings.

On October 13, 2014 at 1:09 p.m., in a recorded telephone call **** advised CARS that the crank key broke off, damaging the key way, which caused the timing of your vehicle to be off; consequently damaging the heads and valves. **** also faxed the cause of failure to CARS (attached). On that same date at 1:52 p.m. CARS advised **** that pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract the crank key and damage caused by it was non-covered; therefore, we were unable to assist with the engine claim.

On
October 13, 2014 at 2:32 p.m., our claims manager also explained in detail the claim with you. Also, on that same day a CARS' customer service representative reviewed your service contract with you and explained that pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract, the crank key is a non­covered component under your coverage. The customer service representative further advised that you were not eligible for rental benefits under your service contract.

By your signature on your service contract, you acknowledged that you read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is stated in the service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1 (q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure to a covered component caused by failure of a non-covered component." Here, the repair facility chosen by you to repair your vehicle found that the failure of a non-covered component (i.e. crank key), caused the failure of a covered component (i.e. engine).

It is stated in your service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and at Paragraph 1 (a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the crank key is not listed as covered components on the front of the service contract; therefore, CARS is not able to assist with the repair or replacement of these parts.

The rental benefits of your service contract states:                  "The   Service Contract Holder will be

reimbursed $25.00 for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $300.00 per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included." Also the service contract states at Paragraph 2(m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have." Here, you are not entitled to rental assistance because the failures to your vehicle were not covered by your service contract.

Furthermore, under your service contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repair. Said service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform you what is specifically covered and your financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of your service contract. Therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the October 9, 2014 engine claim for all the reasons stated above.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

Regards,

********* *******

11/5/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchase a warranty on my 2002 Dodge Ram last year good for 4 years. I have the Value Plus plan which distinctly covers a radiator. My radiator has busted and has leaked everywhere. I took it to a local dealer who called this company as they request to get an authorization number. I understand because it's on my warranty very clearly they will pay $60 per labor hour, and I am liable for any overage and my $100 deductible. The agent told my mechanic they won't pay market price for a new radiator! So either I have to wait for this company to ship a radiator of their choice to my mechanic (likely used or low quality), or I have to pay the difference between their paying rate and the market rate for the radiator through my dealer. It says NOWHERE on my warranty paperwork that they will not cover the full cost of the radiator itself. I am VERY unhappy. Now I sit with a busted radiator waiting on them to ship one because otherwise they want me to pay extra!

Desired Settlement: I want them to cover the radiator that my mechanic has without any additional cost to me.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 22, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On May 20, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on May 24, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On October 22, 2014 at 2:27 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing radiator issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Later that same day, CARS went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the radiator for $160.59. We would also authorize $20.00 for fluids for the repair. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 1.2 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $72.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $152.59, and we could supply the parts and assist with the cost of fluids as stated above; however, we would be unable to assist with labor because the labor cost was less than the $100.00 deductible. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision.

On October 23, 2014 at 9:12 a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to have the radiator shipped to the repair facility. We again advised the repair facility that since CARS was supplying the radiator and the labor was less than the $100.00 deductible, the customer was responsible for all other charges.

By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of his service contract. The customer's service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f):                                                                         “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Here, the supplied part is new and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, covered through the service contract expiration date of May 24, 2017.

Additionally, the service contract states under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 2Q): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $100.00 deductible per claim." Here, the customer chose to have CARS supply the radiator; therefore, the cost of labor was less than the $100.00 deductible.

Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to offer any further assistance for the October 22, 2014 radiator claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. To reiterate, the radiator that CARS selected for the customer's vehicle is new and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, covered through the service contract expiration date of May 24, 2017.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

10/31/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This company is terrible. They advertise their services through dealerships and tell the consumer one thing; and then when the time comes to utilize the services they find reasons to not cover the work needing to be done. My truck broke down and in looking over the package my husband and I purchased, the parts are supposed to be covered and $60/hour of labor are supposed to be coverd. The repair shop quoted us $1,000-$1,200 for the repair and the C.A.R.S will only cover up to $225 worth of work because we aren't using refurbished parts. The repair shop said if the drive shaft, which is the part needing the repair, were to go out on the highway, we would lose control and the vehicle could flip. This is my family vehicle and we haul our young children around in this vehicle, so we don't want to take any risks and don't think it's fair that they want us to use refurbished parts to fix something so serious. If I would have known they would try to pull these types of scams, I would have never purchased the coverage. When you call the company to complain, all they do is read a script and don't try to help you. C.A.R.S has ways they will try to pay less for the work that needs to be repaired and they also don't want to cover parts. I need my car repaired and don't think it's necessary to have this large bill left when I purchased a warranty to cover me in the event of an issue.

Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded for the money I paid to purchase the warranty since they do not want to cover the repairs on my vehicle.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 13, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 13, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract”).

On October 10, 2014 at 2:53 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing driveshaft issues. The repair facility advised CARS that the U-Joint in the rear driveshaft had broken and damaged the yoke on the rear end. The repair facility further advised that the driveshaft was damaged from contact with the ground. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Later that same day, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the rear driveshaft for $225.00. Mitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take .7 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $42.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $167.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however, we would not be able to assist with the cost of labor ($42.00), since the labor cost was less than the $100.00 deductible, or pay $167.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On October 13, 2014 at 1:20 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the cash allowance towards the repair of her vehicle. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle.

On October 13, 2014, CARS customer service representatives reviewed the customer' service contract during three (3) separate telephone conversations. On that same day at 11:56 a.m., the customer advised CARS that she would like to cancel the service contract. We then went over refund policy and emailed a cancellation form to the customer. However, the email was returned as undeliverable, the customer's signature on the Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of her service contract. The

customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE:                              CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or

aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we use the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed component.

Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairs. The service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

In her consumer complaint the customer is requesting a refund her service contract. The customer's service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 5 (a) and (d): CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: Cancellation Provisions: "There is no credit for early termination except if the vehicle is declared a total loss by the carrier insuring the vehicle or if the vehicle is repossessed by the lien holder as stated." and “If the Service Contract is financed, you have the right to cancel the contract within the first 20 days by providing a written request to cancel for a full refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less any claims paid. The refund shall be paid to the lien holder. After 20 days, you have the right to cancel the Service Contract at any time by providing a written request to cancel. The lien holder will be refunded a prorated refund of the amount received by C.A.R.S. for the Service Contract, less a service fee (not to exceed $50.00), less any claims paid."

Please be advised that the customer is entitled to a prorated refund