BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
28 counties covering Western Pennsylvania
Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are You the Business Owner of C.A.R.S Protection Plus Inc?

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 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised 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 164 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
  • BBB has sufficient background information on this business.


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

164 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 55 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 1
Delivery Issues 1
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 110
Problems with Product/Service 52
Total Closed Complaints 164

Additional Information

top
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

What is a BBB Business Review?

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

X

About BBB Business Review Content & Services:

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

Professional AffiliationsX
X

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

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

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

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

X

BBB Complaint Process

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

X

Industry Tips

X

What is BBB Advertising Review?

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

X

What government actions does BBB report on?

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

X

Thank you for your feedback!

Help us improve by taking our survey.

X

BBB Reporting Policy

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

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

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

X

Additional Phone Numbers

  • (724) 387-2327(Phone)
Find a LocationX

  Change Location
Show Only Accredited Locations


Complaint Detail(s)

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 of the amount CARS' received from the selling dealer if the customer's vehicle currently has a lienholder and the customer is willing to sign a General Release before a notary as follows:

Amount received from dealer for service contract:                                          $ 899.00

Term of service contract - 48 months

Less twelve (12) months      proration $18.73 per month                             -   $   206.02

Less claim authorized                                                                                  -   $   167.00

Less service fee                                                                                            -   $   50.00

Total refund owed by CARS                                                                             $ 475.98

CARS service contracts are sold wholesale between selling dealers and CARS. Therefore, any issues with regard to any additional monies owed the customer are between the customer and the selling dealer.

Should the customer be agreeable to a refund, we will prepare a General Release for the service contract holders' execution. In addition, in order for CARS to send the refund to the lienholder, the customer must provide the name and address of the lienholder to 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.

 

 

10/30/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This is my story: I bought a 2009 mitsubishi lancer ralliart on July 18, 2014 for $12,700 from ********* ***** ****** ** ****** ** which is 2 hours from where I live. The day after I purchased the car the transmission was acting up so I contacted a mitsubishi service shop to see if they'd look at it because i knew it wasnt good to drive. They couldn't get it in until july 26, 2014. after looking at the car they realized the wrong transmission fluid was put in. They notified me an said with the wrong fluid it can cause internal damage to the transmission. They suggested I try getting it flushed an put in the proper fluid right away because its not good to run the car like that an it would cost $557.40. I contacted the dealer I bought the car from an he said to contact my warranty (which is car protection plus) I did, an told them my problem that Ive been having since I bought the car. they told me they don't cover fluid services. At this point I had to pay out of pocket for the services because my car was sitting at the shop. after days back an forth with the dealer he agreed to pay me back $325 for just the fluid because it was still with in his 30 days by law. after a few weeks of driving the car with the new fluid, it was still acting up an getting worse as the days went on. I again contacted the dealer an he said my warranty will cover it because its past his 30 days. I brought it to the same service shop so they could put a claim in to car protection plus for a new tranny. Car protection then denied it saying that they won't cover it because it's been a problem with the car from the beginning. This isnt right! i tried to fix the problem an it was to late, the transmission was to far gone an now i have a car that doesnt drive. a warranty is suppose to help their customers with car problems. They should be coveqlring This after the dealers 30 days are up an they're not!! What's the point of a warranty then. Seems to me theyre just makin an excuse cuz they don't wanna pay for a new tranny!

Desired Settlement: I want car protection plus to pay for a new transmission for my car. theyre my warranty company an they should be protecting me an they're not! Why should I be out of a car when I had nothing to do with the transmission being bad. They should be covering it!

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 26, 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 lulv 18. 2014. On that same date he applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles) which was received by CARS and approved with payment on lulv 24. 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On August 19, 2014 at 9:05 a.m., in a recorded telephone call with a CARS customer service representative, the customer stated that his vehicle was shuddering when leaving the dealership on the date of purchase of July 18, 2014. The customer then stated that he took it to a Mitsubishi dealer and they told him that the wrong transmission fluid was in in the vehicle; therefore, they replaced the transmission fluid and filter. The customer also stated that the transmission issues improved; however the transmission still occasionally hesitated. The customer further stated that he submitted the invoice to the selling dealer to forward to CARS for reimbursement. During that telephone call we advised the customer that fluids and filters are maintenance item and are not covered under any of CARS service contracts. It was additionally explained to the customer that any mechanical issues in progress prior to CARS acceptance of a service contract application are not covered and any failures caused by the use of incorrect transmission fluid in the vehicle were also not covered.

On September 23, 2014 at 3:32 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the transmission was grinding and hesitating. During that telephone call, we explained to the repair facility that this claim would need to be reviewed by CARS management and requested that the repair facility wait to perform any diagnosis and tear down, because CARS had received previous information that the wrong transmission fluid was in the vehicle.

On September 24, 2014 at 10:47 a.m., 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 for the following two (2) reasons:

1.      The customer advised CARS in a recorded call that the failures to the vehicle were present on the date of vehicle purchase (i.e. July 18, 2014), which failures were prior to CARS receiving with payment and approving the customer's service contract (i.e. July 24, 2014); and

?
2.      The customer advised CARS that the vehicle had the wrong transmission fluid in the vehicle at the time of purchase and that a Mitsubishi dealer replaced the fluid and also the filter.

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 below the customer's signature, it states:                                                           "The   service      contract   goes   into   effect   when this application is

received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc.”

Additionally, under the terms and conditions at Paragraphs 1(b) & (n): "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.” and "Damage resulting from anyone altering, misusing or tampering with the vehicle, making improper adjustments or using improper fuels or

fluids.”

In summary, during the August 19, 2014 recorded telephone call, the customer stated that he began to experience transmission issues on the date of purchase. Also, his consumer complaint verified that the vehicle's transmission was acting up and not safe to drive. Additionally, the customer also advised that a repair facility advised him that the wrong transmission fluid was in the vehicle, which could have caused internal damage to the vehicle.

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. Also, CARS service contracts do not cover failures that are a result of using improper fluids. Here, even though the claim was not opened until September 23, 2014, the customer's transmission issues were present and in progress when the customer purchased the vehicle on July 18, 2014 and the wrong transmission fluid was also in the vehicle on the date 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. Therefore, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the September 23, 2014, transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle.

However, the customer has service contract coverage on his vehicle through January 24, 2015 or 104,187 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.

10/29/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 1999 BMW 740 from a used car dealership with 120K miles on it. Because of how old the car was I decided that it was a good idea to get a warranty, just in case anything went wrong. Once the car was in my possession I at first had no issues, however after 2 weeks of driving to work and back I encountered an issue one morning. I got in to go to work and the car began shacking and making weird noises. Since I know nothing about cars, I called a mechanic who informed me that the car needed to be towed to the auto shop to determine what was causing the issue. After the car was towed I called the warranty company about the issue. They informed me that the diagnostic costs would have to be out of pocket, which ended up costing me about $1,000. After the diagnostic was complete, it was determined that it was an internal engine issue. The mechanic then reached out to the warranty company informing them of the issue. The warranty company then sent out an adjuster to come and see the vehicle. The adjuster that was sent out knew very little about cars ( from what my mechanic told me) He tried starting the car with the engine being apart which caused it to break even more. At this point, they are telling me that they do not cover the original issue, which according to their policy they do, and are denying the claim that their adjuster did any harm to the vehicle. There were several individuals on site that seen the adjuster start the car with a engine that was taken apart with no fluids in it, however they are still denying it. The warranty company does not want to pay for the original issue or the other issue they caused and as of now I have a car that I have no use of since it is still at the shop 3 weeks later with a broken engine, thanks to their adjuster.

Desired Settlement: I bought the warranty just in case something would happen and something did. When I bought the warranty I was informed that X,Y and Z would be covered however once something happened the warranty company did not want to deal with it. Not only did they not fix the original problem, but their adjuster broke it even more and is now denying it. I want the warranty company to do as they promised and fix my vehicle.

Business Response: I am in receipt of your letter dated October 9, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on August 30, 2014 and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 120,566 miles on the odometer. On that same date, she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was received with payment and approved by CARS on September 5, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).
On September 17, 2014 at 11:25 a.m., a claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer's vehicle advising of engine issues. The repair facility also stated that the vehicle currently registered 120,720 miles on the odometer, which means that 154 miles were driven on the vehicle since the date of purchase. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised them to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure and provide CARS with its cause of failure and extent of damage, so that we could determine if the failed components would be covered under the customer's vehicle.
On September 26, 2014 at 2:46 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the #1 exhaust valve was burnt. When asked what caused the valve to burn; however, the repair facility could not verify. We then explained to the repair facility to get the customer's permission to send out cylinder head to verify extent of damage and call us back with results. During that telephone call, we explained to the repair facility that an independent inspection of the customer’s vehicle may be necessary to verify their findings.
On October 2, 2014 at 3:43 p.m., we received a telephone call from repair facility advising that the vehicle needed new valves as they were worn, cracked and one (1) was chipped. The repair facility also stated that there was carbon buildup, but was not sure whether the carbon was the cause of failure. As a result, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the vehicle was necessary to verify that carbon build up, as found by the repair facility, was the exact cause of failure and also determine the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.
The independent inspection occurred on October 7, 2014. The independent inspection found that one of the exhaust valves for the #1 cylinder had a piece of it burned away. There was
evidence of carbon accumulation on the valve seat. There were no other burned valves evident and
no signs of piston or cylinder wall damage. The head gasket was intact. There were no signs of recent repairs or new parts installed on the engine. The independent inspector found that the failure to the engine was due to the burning of the #1 cylinder exhaust valve due to improper valve seating from carbon accumulation over time and miles and continued operation, which failure was in progress prior to 154 miles.
At this time I would like to address the customer’s concerns regarding the competence of the independent inspector. For many years, CARS has been using a well-known, experienced and quality nationwide inspection company to perform independent inspections. Their inspectors are well trained with extensive mechanical expertise and service contract administrative backgrounds.
During the inspection of the customer’s vehicle, the inspector only turned the key in the ignition to illuminate the dashboard to obtain the accurate mileage on the vehicle and to determine if any warning lights were illuminated, as well. This procedure occurs in all inspections so that pertinent information can be obtained.
Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on her Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. The service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph l(p):             “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage/failure caused by carbon,
sludge, water ingestion or combustion leaks.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer found that carbon build up was the cause of failure and the independent inspector verified these failures. Therefore, CARS was correct when we were unable to offer any assistance with the repair to 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 this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

10/24/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On September 24,2014 I delivered my 2003 Cadillac Deville to *** ****** **** for repairs on the radiator and two lean codes. The vehicle was diagnosed on September 25,2014 with a warped intake manifold and a cracked radiator. Both problems covered in my warranty with Cars Protection Plus. Cars Protection Plus was then contacted by *** ****** **** on September 25,2015 and was notified about the two problems. Tim, who opened the claim , had told *** ****** **** that he would call them back that same day but no later than the next business day with an answer on what the warranty will do about the claim. The warranty failed to contact *** ****** **** when they said they would. *** ****** **** was contacted by Cars Protection Plus on September 30,2014,four business days later after Cars Protection Plus was notified of the repairs that were covered in my warranty, and told that Cars Protection Plus will be mailing *** ****** **** used parts because they can get them cheap and the parts will be at the shop Friday or Saturday. I contacted CARS personally and asked about a rental car since it is going to take nine to ten days to get started on fixing my car covered in a warranty. I was told no because CARS said I don't get a rental benefit for down time regardless of the reason. In conclusion,It is now October 5.2014 and the parts still have not been delivered and I am still without transportation. The work on my car takes close to six hours to fix and it has been eleven days and counting without a car because my warranty,Cars Protection Plus,wants to use the cheapest used parts they can find to fix my car, which is only a temporary fix since they are used parts, and mail them by standard shipping. They wouldn't even pay the extra money to ship them overnight. I can`t believe this business has an A+ rating

Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund so I can fix my car the way it should be fixed.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 5, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On April 22, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on May 10, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract").

Since the inception the Customer’s Service contract, five (5) claims have been opened as follows:


 


DATE

May 31, 2013

AMOUNT

$ 0.00

 

CLAIM

Transmission

CLAIM STATUS

Closed - customer moved vehicle


 


$ 779.05

$ 0.00

 

September 25, 2013 August 8, 2014

Water pump, rack, axles Paid - September 7, 2014 Radiator, intake manifold, Closed - customer moved


vehicle

Transmission


Radiator, intake manifold, Closed - No contact for 30


0.00

$ 253.99

352.50


August 12, 2014 September 25, 2014


Transmission

Intake Manifold, intake gasket, radiator__


days

Authorized - Supplied parts Authorized - labor____


 

 

 


$ 1,385.54

TOTAL AMOUNT AUTHORIZED OR PAID:

On September 25, 2014 at 1:35 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing intake manifold and intake gasket issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. The repair facility then advised us that they were hearing a

slight engine knock when the engine was running. We asked the repair facility to fax an estimate to CARS for our review.

On September 26, 2014 at 1:47 p.m., we advised the repair facility to inform the customer about the slight engine knock and give the customer the opportunity to have the noise evaluated. The repair facility then advised that noise is coming from the valve train and is intermittent. The repair facility then advised that they had found the cause of a leak that the customer originally reported. The radiator was cracked and would need to be replaced. We then asked for a revised estimate for our review.

On September 29, 2014 at 10:26 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS to check on his rental benefits. During that telephone call, a claims adjuster reviewed rental benefits with him.

On September 30, 2014 at 10:26 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 intake manifold gasket for $125.00, the intake gasket for $12.31 and radiator for $116.68. We would also authorize $25.00 for fluids for the repair. Mitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take 5.7 hours to complete and the customer's service contract pays up to $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $427.50. 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 $605.99, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $352.50 towards labor and fluids or pay $605.99 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 1, 2014 at 11:08 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer would like to use our supplied parts. CARS then gave the repair facility the estimated arrival date of October 8, 2014 for the supplied parts and an authorization number to begin work on the customer's vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on his Ultimate 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 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.

In addition, 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.” As you can see from the above information, CARS replied to the repair facility in a timely manner. CARS received the final repair estimates from the repair facility on Friday, September 26, 2014 and on Tuesday September 30, 2014 we provided options to the repair facility for the customer’s decision on how CARS could assist with September 25, 2014 claim. Please be advised that it requires time to receive, review estimates and find available parts that are best for the repair of the vehicle. We informed the repair facility on October 1, 2014 that the estimated arrival date would be October 8, 2014. 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.

The rental benefits of the customer’s service contract states: "You will be reimbursed twenty- five f$2 5.001 dollars for each eight hours of Mitchell QnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of three hundred f$300.001 dollars per claim, if proof of rental is provided. Down time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide stated that the repair should take 5.7 hours to complete; therefore, the customer is not entitled to rental benefits under the 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. Therefore, CARS is not directed by any state statute in Nevada to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. In addition, the claims paid exceed the amount CARS received for the customer's service contract, thus no refund is available.

The customer's vehicle has service coverage through May 10, 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.

10/24/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: i have 2002 jeep grand Cherokee with a bad heater core that they will not fix. i have ball joints and others things that are broke too and all they said they will give me for those repairs are 205 and the mechanic said it will cost over 2000 to repair. for example a ball joint they give you is 5.00 to fix it. to me this is false a advertising. i would not recommend them to any one. they do not fix your car they just take your money and run.

Desired Settlement: i want all my repairs fix for free all i want to pay is the deductible and taxis.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 16, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on October 1, 2014. On that same date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles).

On October 6, 2014 at 9:33 a.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that he purchased his vehicle on October 1, 2014 and was checking on his coverage. A customer service representative explained that his service contract application had not yet been received by CARS. Our customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with him. Later that same day on October 6, 2014, the customer's service contract was received by CARS and approved with payment (See attached Service Contract).

On October 15, 2014 at 8:59 a.m., a customer service representative telephoned the customer in response to an email submission requesting information. The customer service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with him.

On October 16, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing heater core, ball joint, axle, axle seal, and valve cover gasket issues. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

On October 16, 2014 at 9:59 a.m., the customer advised us in a recorded telephone conversation that his vehicle began to experience heater core issues just one (1) day after vehicle purchase (i.e. October 2. 2014).

Later that same day we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract we would not be able to assist with the oil leak, tie rod end or any other fluid leaks. In addition, we would not be able to assist with the heater core repair, because this failure occurred prior to service contract acceptance as stated above. We then went over the components and amounts we could authorize for the customer's vehicle with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left upper and left front lower ball joints for $11.15 and two (2) front axles for $77.58. Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated that the repair should take 4.4 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore; total labor was $264.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We explained that the total value of the claim for the covered components after the deductible was applied was $252.73, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $164.00 towards labor or pay $252.73 towards the repair of the customer's choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back to us with the customer's decision. The repair facility advised us that the customer would take the cash allowance. An authorization number was given to the repair facility to begin repairs on the customer's vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. Directly below the customer's signature, it 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, 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.” 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, based upon the customer's information, it was determined that the heater core failure was present on October 2, 2014, which was prior to the customer's service contract acceptance with payment by CARS on October 6, 2014; therefore, no assistance for the heater core repair could be offered.

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 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.

The service contract states under COVERED COMPONENTS: "SEALS, GASKETS & FLUIDS Seals, gaskets and fluids are covered only when required in conjunction with the replacement of a covered component." In addition, the service contract states under terms and conditions at Paragraph l(r): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused bv fluid leaks.” Pursuant to the customer's service contract the leaks and gaskets repairs needed for the repair of his vehicle are not covered.

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 summary, during the October 16, 2014 recorded telephone call, the customer stated that he began to experience heater core issues on October 2. 2014. just one (1) day after he took his vehicle home from the selling dealership. CARS did not receive and approve the customer's service contract until October 6, 2014: therefore, we are unable to assist with this portion of the mechanical claim. Furthermore, CARS would not be able to assist with any repair regarding the oil leaks. However, as stated above, CARS did authorize the amount of $252.73 towards the covered component repairs (i.e. upper ball joints and front axles) 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.

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,

**** *********
i have 2002 jeep grand Cherokee with a bad heater
core that they will not fix. i have ball joints and others things that
are broke too and all they said they will give me for those repairs are
205 and the mechanic said it will cost over 2000 to repair. for example
a ball joint they give you is 5.00 to fix it. to me this is false a
advertising. i would not recommend them to any one. they do not fix your
car they just take your money and run. it was not prior to the contract affected this company is a scam i would not recommend it to no one they will not fix my car what is wrong with you guy is just about money bbb.

10/23/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: For several months now I have been trying to have my vehicle repaired using my extended warranty with Cars Protection Plus. My claim has been denied. They are claiming the reson for the defined claim is because of an accident, the claim is for the right side of the car. The accident was on the left and completely cover and repair by hewkin auto body with a 100% life time warranty. The problem is on the right!!!!

Desired Settlement: Refund for repairs made or vehicle NOT related to accident.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 1, 2014, 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 26, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on March 26, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

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

FIRST CLAIM:   On December 26, 2013 at 11:08 a.m., in a recorded telephone call, a repair

facility advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right CV axle, intermediate shaft/carrier bearings, left front wheel bearing, control arm/ball joint and CV boot issues due to the customer’s vehicle being involved in an accident. After reviewing the estimate provided by the repair facility, CARS telephoned the customer and advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions his service contract, we were unable to offer assistance. CARS explained that any issues that result from an accident are not covered by the service contract and advised him to call his vehicle insurance carrier. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On February 4, 2014, at 3:02 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front axle issues. The repair facility advised that both front axles were leaking grease. No verified failure was found by the repair facility in regard to the front axles other than the boots were leaking grease. We then advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract, we would be unable to assist with the claims because the boots are non-covered components under the service contract.

THIRD CLAIM: On August 13, 2014, at 10:10 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair

facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing right front axle, left front wheel bearing, left wheel, tire and belt tensioner issues. We advised the repair facility that we would need receipts from previous repairs to review since the customer's vehicle was involved in an accident in December of 2013. We also advised that we were unable to assist with the belt tensioner repair because the claim allowance was $90.76 which was less than the $100.00 deductible. That was the last communication that CARS had with the repair facility. As of said date, we have never received the requested receipts. After thirty (30) days without any contact from the repair facility or the customer, the claim was closed by CARS.

Please be advised that 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 under the terms and conditions at 1 (k):             "COMPONENTS AND

EXPENSES NOT COVERED:  Damage from fire and/or accident, regardless of the cause." On

December 26, 2013 in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right CV axle, intermediate shaft/carrier bearings, left front wheel bearing, control arm/ball joint and CV boot issues due to the customer’s vehicle being involved in an accident.

Furthermore, it is stated under terms and conditions at Paragraph 2 (t): “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: You must retain all vehicle maintenance/repair records for review at the request of CARS.” CARS requested the repair receipts associated with the December 26, 2013 claim; however, the requested repair receipts were never provided.

In addition, under the customer's Service Contract, we are 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 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 is willing to provide receipts from previous repairs to his vehicle for our review and if the issues listed on the August 13, 2014 claim have not yet been repaired, the customer should open a new claim on behalf of his vehicle. After CARS reviews the findings of the repair facility and reviews the repair receipts, CARS will then be able to determine if any assistance is available for the repair 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.

10/22/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought my car and 2 weeks later engine began knocking/ticking so I brought to dealership and warranty company told dealership I was responsible for $1100 for engine break down. So in a rough spot I told dealership I would pay that so that they could find out what was wrong so warranty company could fix it. Dealership found that the engines rod and crankshaft were gone and said my car needed an engine replacement. Now the rod, crankshaft, and engine are all parts listed in the warranties covered parts but the warranty company said they would only cover $1100.00 towards the replacement of the engine. Since I could not afford putting the money up for a new engine which is what I should have got! I had to put up over $3600.00 towards a used engine. They in the end only gave me $1145.00 towards my over $4700.00 bill.

Desired Settlement: I think that I should get a new engine put in my car! I was left in a predicament and a position where I was left no choice but to put a used engine in my car which is not right when the parts that went were covered under my warranty. I also think I should be reimbursed the money I had to put towards this bill which was $3600.00! These warranty companies leave people in bad situations with no choice but to pick the cheapest option that they can afford and its wrong!

Business Response:

1 received your letter dated October 6, 2014, enclosing the customer's concerns contained the above-referenced consumer complaint. Our records indicate that on September 6, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, she also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on September 10, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract”).

A mechanical claim was opened on September 22, 2014 at 10:38 a.m., by a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing engine issues. The repair facility advised that their shop’s labor rate was $99.95 per hour. CARS claim procedures were then thoroughly reviewed with the repair facility.

After CARS received the estimate for repairs on September 24, 2014, 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 an engine for $675.00. Mitchell's OnDemand Labor Guide states that the repair should take 11.4 hours and the customer’s service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour; therefore, total labor allowed was $570.00. 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 $1,145. 00 and we could supply the engine as stated above and pay $470.00 towards labor or pay $1,145.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice.

That same day at 4:10 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer wanted to use our money allowance for the engine 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 are completed, CARS will pay the repair facility the amount of $1,145.00 as stated above and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

At this time, I would also like to clarify that the Power Train Service Contract that the customer purchased on her vehicle is the most basic service contract that CARS offers and is limited in coverage time and miles, labor rate of $50.00 per hour, deductible of $100.00, covered components and the responsibility of the customer for various other charges not covered under the service contract (i.e. tear down, diagnosis, taxes, fluids, filters, difference in labor rates and time, etc.). Therefore, CARS is not required to cover the full cost of the repair.

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 her financial responsibility for the teardown, diagnosis, filters, fluids, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible. Accordingly, CARS service contracts are to assist with covered mechanical failures; however, they are not intended to pay 100% for customer's repairs. Here, the repair facility’s labor rate that the customer chose to repair her vehicle was $99.95 and her service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour; therefore, any difference in labor charges rate and time are the sole responsibility of the customer. The customer is also responsible for any and all costs relating to the teardown and diagnosis of the vehicle. However, after a claim is authorized by CARS the labor time allowable for the repair does include the cost to replace and repair. Additionally, any difference in the engine price that CARS could have supplied and the cost of the replacement engine that the repair facility is charging the customer, is the sole responsibility of the customer.

As you can see from all the above information, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations regarding the customer’s recent engine claim, which will be paid by CARS in the total amount of $1,145.00 once we receive the final invoice evidencing that the repairs are completed, 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.

10/17/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: In January, 2012, I purchased a used vehicle (2004 GMC 2500HD) from * *** * **** ***** ** ******* **. At the time of purchase, I was offered an extended warranty through Cars Protection Plus. They had several options, and I chose to purchase this coverage. As the vehicle I was purchasing had had its suspension modified with a lift kit, the owner of the dealership called the warranty company to ensure that the power train would still be covered under their policy. The representative, ***** ****, informed us that any aftermarket pieces of the suspension would not be covered, but that the remainder of the vehicle would, in fact, still be covered if I purchased the more expensive Protection Package (the Value Plus Package priced at $995.00 with 48 months of coverage and unlimited mileage).Of course, I jumped right in, thinking that it was a tremendous safety net in the event that something went wrong with the vehicle.A few weeks ago, I had some issues with the vehicle not starting and running a little rough when it did. I called Cars Protection Plus and asked them the procedure for getting it fixed. Long story short, they told me to take it to a repair shop to verify the malfunction, but, when the repair shop confirmed the issue, the adjustor from their company denied the repair due to the suspension modification.I got online immediately to get more information on the claim denial and found that they had already cancelled the contract that I had paid for in 2012 and I was unable even to get an information that way.I called customer service there and was informed that they would not honor their end of the contract, which, had I known, I would never have purchased in the first place.

Desired Settlement: I would like Cars Protection Plus to honor their end of the contract. As a business, they are responsible for the commitments that their employees make in the selling of their product. The question was brought to them specifically concerning the suspension at the time of purchase and the answer was described above. I would like them to cover the costs ($3,840.00) of the repair of the mechanical failure that was unrelated to the suspension modification.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 25, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows:

The customer states in his complaint that prior to service contract purchase, he spoke to a CARS representative regarding coverage for his altered/modified vehicle. Please be advised that CARS has no record of any conversations between any of CARS' sales representatives, the customer or dealer regarding the customer's altered/ modified vehicle being determined an "exception” for service contract coverage. Additionally, only CARS’ management has the authority to make decisions regarding any "exceptions” for coverage of any normally ineligible vehicles.

Therefore, CARS believed that the customer’s vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on January 12, 2012. It was not until the processing of the September 16, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. lift kit and 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.

At this time, however in effort to assist the customer with the repairs, CARS is willing to refund the full amount listed as the purchase price on the service contract (i.e. $995.00). However, due to the circumstances surrounding this matter, we will require a General Release to be signed by the customer prior to us sending him the refund.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the customer's witnessed and notarized signature, in the event the customer is agreeable. Upon our receipt of the fully executed and notarized General Release, CARS will send the refund check directly to the customer.

By the customer's signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read and the limited warranty application and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. It is also stated under terms and conditions: PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY: Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the limited warranty." Additionally, "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or limited warranty for cause as determined by CARS."

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.

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 all concerned,

After having spoken to the Military Consumer Advocate on **** ***** (I am active duty military), the dealer that I purchased the vehicle and the extended warranty from, and an attorney, I am not in acceptance of the offer of a simple refund of the purchase price of the warranty from Cars Protection Plus for the following reasons:

1- I find it to be very "convenient" for this company that they have no record of the conversation between the dealer and I and their sales representative who, by the way, they say is no longer employed by them. Had this matter been in their favor, I am sure that there would be a record of it. As far as their statement that only management has the authority to make decisions regarding exceptions, I am sure that their sales representatives are expected to make the sale in any way that they can to increase this company's profits and would not disclose that information to a consumer or else they would not be able "to make the sale." That the sales rep assured the dealer and I that the power train would still be covered if I purchased the more expensive coverage package further solidifies this. Had I not been assured of this, I would not have purchased their product.

2- Their statement that they rely on the information provided by the dealers and/or repair facilities and cannot themselves inspect every vehicle that has a service contract under them causes me to believe that they are hedging due to the fact that the repair cost exceeds the cost of the warranty. They are more than willing to take money from consumers for coverage without inspecting vehicles, but will not honor their end without inspecting the same vehicle when there is a claim made. Regardless of their inspection limitations, the information about the suspension modification WAS provided to that company and they sold the warranty with that information. Failing to honor the warranty is simply fraud on their part.

3-The dealer that I purchased the vehicle and warranty from is appalled at the decision of this company to deny the claim in the manner that they have and is more than willing to write a statement regarding the conversation with the sales representative prior to the purchase of the extended warranty and has informed me that he is no longer willing to "hawk the product of a disreputable company." I have attached the listing that was posted where I found the vehicle in the first place as well as pictures that were attached. All of these were from before I purchased the vehicle or the extended warranty and the sales rep was made aware of the suspension modification.

4-After the repair facility informed me of the claim denial, I attempted to get online to find out more information on why the claim was denied. I discovered that there was "No Record Found" when I entered my logon and contract information. This company had immediately cancelled my contract without notifying me and denied me online access to more information. When I called the company regarding this, I was met with statements such as "there is nothing we can do," "your contract has been cancelled," and "have your lawyer contact our legal department." Customer service is non-existent once they have your money and decide not to honor a claim.

 

5-The company claims that oversized tires could cause “undue mechanical problems” to the vehicle.  I’m sorry, but the malfunction that the vehicle experienced has nothing to do with the suspension or tires.  If any “undue mechanical problems” could be caused by oversized tires or suspension modifications, it would involve the transmission, not the engine.  It is a truck, plain and simple, with an engine designed to haul loads or pull loads.  According to their statement, any type of modification (ie. aftermarket parts) voids their warranty.  Would they say that the installation of seat covers in the cab or the installation of a Fram oil filter also fall into their definition of “modifications?”

In fact, upon further research into the injector issue, I discovered that that particular model (**** *** **** *******) was notorious for injector problems, so much so that GM put out an extended coverage memo (#****** – Also attached) in 2007 for that part specifically, up to 200,000 miles or seven years (I am just over 100,000 miles on the vehicle, but it is over ten years old).

6-That this company is offering a refund of the purchase price of the warranty contingent upon the execution of a General Release is laughable. What kind of warranty company refuses to honor a claim, but will refund the cost of a plan only if the repair costs exceed their initial charge to the consumer? A company that has no intention of doing anything but increasing profits and disregarding the consumers that purchase their product.

 

7-The Military Consumer Advocate is outraged by this company’s failure and fraud.  I would not be surprised if the company becomes “blacklisted” by the military due to this situation.

 

I do not want a refund of the purchase price of the warranty.  I want exactly what I paid for…coverage of repair of a malfunction of my vehicle.

 

This company “rolls the dice” when offering extended warranties on used vehicles in hopes that no one will process a claim through them, but will quickly cancel contracts with no notice when their bottom line is affected by a claim that does get processed.  Can I get into this business when I am done serving my country?  Sounds like a great money-maker.  Oh, wait, I wouldn’t do that to people that I take money from in trust.



Regards,

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

Business Response:

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

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 6, 2014, enclosing the additional consumer concerns regarding the above matter.

At this time, I would like to address those concerns. To reiterate and clarify, CARS keeps accurate and detailed records of all conversations between customers, dealers, sales representatives, etc. Accordingly, CARS has no record of the dealership ever contacting CARS for a possible exception for coverage of the customer’s vehicle. Any exception would have required to be approved by a CARS in house manager and would have clearly been marked and reflected on the customer's service contract, so that the service contract could be processed and approved. Here, as you can see from the customer's service contract, which is again attached, there is no exception or manager’s authorization for coverage of the customer's vehicle. Please also be advised that CARS has no control over conversations between dealers and customers during vehicle purchase negotiations.

Again, by the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read and the limited warranty application and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer's service contract states at terms and conditions: "PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY: Altered or modified vehicles are not covered and shall also void the limited warranty.” Additionally, "We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or limited warranty for cause as determined by CARS."

CARS' service contract terms and conditions are clear and concise as stated above. Therefore, when the customer purchased the vehicle on January 12, 2012, CARS believed that the customer's vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved with payment by CARS on January 12, 2012; however, it was not until the processing of the September 16, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications to the customer's vehicle. The alterations/modifications (i.e. lift kit and oversize tires, and oversized bumper) of the customers vehicle are not according to the manufacturer’s specifications. In addition, the customer provided photographs of his vehicle which clearly reflect that the vehicle was altered and modified from the manufacturer’s specification. These alterations/modifications can and do affect the way the vehicle performs and also can cause undue mechanical problems with the vehicle.

In summary, if CARS would have known of the alterations/modifications to the customer’s vehicle at the time of vehicle purchase and when he applied for service contract coverage, CARS would not have accepted this vehicle for coverage under any of CARS' service contracts.

However, CARS is still willing to refund the full amount listed as the purchase price on the service contract (i.e. $995.00), with the execution of the General Release, which I have again provided. In the event the customer is agreeable we will send him the refund check directly, upon our receipt of the fully executed and notarized General Release.

Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding this matter. Thank you.

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.

As a consumer putting faith in a company to hold up their end of a contract (after having notified the same company of issues regarding the vehicle that was to be covered), I was unfortunately unaware that I would need to have a lawyer present to enter into the agreement with them.  I will definitely have a lawyer present when I take this matter to court. 

I again reject their proposed settlement of a refund of the purchase price of the extended warranty.


Regards,

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

10/14/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had purchased an extended warranty for my vehicle and three months ago my ball joints went in my truck so i brought it in to get repaired and C.A.R.S. Protection Plus had sent the parts to my mechanic and three months later that same ball joint that they had sent broke due to a faulty part so i brought it into my mechanic and C.A.R.S. Protection Plus is still making me pay for the deductible even though it was due to their faulty part.

Desired Settlement: $167.00 for the deductible and tax that they won't pay.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 24 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner:         On January 19, 2014, the customer

purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, he also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on January 31, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract").

Since the inception of the customer's service contract, two (2) mechanical claims were opened on behalf of his vehicle as follows:

FIRST CLAIM: On April 3, 2014 at 11:05 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems regarding both front hub assemblies, both upper ball joints/control arms, both rear upper control arms, rear wiper motor and a right front axle seal. After the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and extent of damage, we went over the amount we could authorize for the repairs pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract as follows: We could supply (2) front hub assemblies for $117.79 each, (2) front upper control arms for $53.69 each and two (2) rear upper control arms for $121.95 each. We would also allow the amount of $163.25 for the shop's supplied rear wiper motor for a total allowance of parts in the amount of $750.11. Mitchells OnDemand stated that the above repairs would take 7.00 hours and the customer's service contract paid up to $75.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $525.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible.

After the claim was authorized and a final repair invoice was provided, CARS paid the repair facility the amount of $588.25 for the labor associated with the repairs and also for the cost of the rear wiper motor. We also paid our parts suppliers the total amount of $586.86 for the other parts as above listed. Therefore, the total value of the April 3, 2014 claim paid by CARS was $1,338.25, once the deductible was applied.

SECOND CLAIM: On September 22, 2014 at 11:56 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was again experiencing upper ball joints/control arm and also experiencing new rear caliper issues.

Since CARS previously supplied the upper right ball joint/control arm and the parts were still under warranty for parts and labor, we advised the repair facility that we would replace the failed part and also pay for 1.4 hours labor associated with the repair pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

However, the customer’s vehicle was now experiencing rear caliper issues, which were not failed, authorized and/or replaced and paid for by CARS during the processing in the April claim. Therefore, the rear caliper repair was now a new claim and CARS authorized this portion of the claim for the rear caliper repair as follows: We allowed the amount of $84.30 for the rear calipers and also $12.99 for fluid. Mitchells OnDemand stated that the repair should 1.8 hours and the customer’s service contract paid up to $75.00 per hour. The labor authorized for the repair of rear caliper was $135.00 and the total labor authorized for the repair of the upper right ball joint/control arm was $105.00. Therefore, the total labor for both repairs was $240.00. The claim was also subject to the $100.00 deductible regarding the rear caliper repair portion of the claim. Therefore, the total value of the claim was $262.99, once the deductible was applied. CARS also shipped the replacement upper ball joint/control arm at no cost to the customer.

Therefore, as you can see from the above information, CARS was correct to charge the deductible for the September 22, 2014 claim, because of the new rear caliper failure. Additionally, any taxes due are the sole responsibility of the customer. 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 what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and times and also the 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.

Sincerely,


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

Additional Notes

Complaint: On October 2, 2014 my vehicle was towed to the closet dealership that handles my make and model vehicle. It was there it was diagnosed. The transmission needed to be replaced. On October 6, 2014 I was contacted by the dealership that Cars Protection Plus would ONLY cover a used (or) aftermarket transmission and that they (the dealership) does NOT offer any warranty on these types of parts. I immediately contacted Cars Protection Plus. The adjuster by the name of ***** was extremely rude and told me that when my warranty expires in December of 2014 so will the warranty of the product that was placed on my vehicle. No other warranty will be given for this product afterwards. *****'s exact words were "this is the most cost effective way for us". "Your contract states that we CAN use aftermarket products or used parts to replace or fix issues". Not that they have to, but they can. I am a single mom on a fixed income. It is incredibly sicking that these types of warranty companies are allowed to do this to their own customers. I understand cost effectiveness, but right is right and wrong is wrong. This is just wrong on so many levels.

Desired Settlement: I would like for Cars Protection Plus to pay for the new transmission to placed in my vehicle so that the dealership would offer a warranty on their product and service. Cars Protection Plus would be out of the equation, and no more money would come out of their pockets.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 7, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On December 11, 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 the same was accepted with payment by CARS on December 15, 2013 (the attached "Service Contract").

On October 6, 2014 at 11:02 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing transmission issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

Later that same day, after CARS received and reviewed the estimate from the repair facility, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $1,500.00. Mitchell's OnDemand stated that the repair should take 8.6 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor covered was $430.00. 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 $1,830.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $430.00 towards labor or pay $1,830.00 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 7, 2014 at 11:55 a.m., we went over the claim allowance with the customer. The customer stated that we should be paying for a new transmission for her vehicle. We then went over the terms and conditions of the service contract. The customer then stated we were a "rip-off' and hung up on our claims adjustor.

On October 8, 2014 at 1:00 p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer would like the supplied transmission. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin repairs to the customer's vehicle.

?
By the customer’s signature on her Power Train 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. In this instance, the replacement transmission for the customer’s vehicle will have less mileage (50,000 miles] than the transmission (89,635 miles) that is being replaced.

The service contract also states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 2 (b): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: Coverage begins the day this application is received with payment and approved by CARS and will last for the time period or mileage indicated, whichever occurs first, so long as you own the vehicle." The customer's vehicle has service coverage through December 16, 2014 or when the odometer reaches 92,885 miles, whichever occurs first. The warranty on any supplied parts ends with the expiration of the service contract.

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: 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.

 
After reading their response I am appalled at the out right lies that have been stated.  I cannot dispute what was stated to the repair facility, however the conversation that ***** (the adjuster) , and I had was no where even close to the statements that were made that day.  I asked why a new transmission was not being supplied because of the facility not offering any type of warranty on used parts.  His reply (*******) it is not cost effective for our company.  We never discussed any other subject but that issue.  I then said "wow, some customer service, cost effective".
 
My concern is a used part that offers no kind of warranty.  Not labor, deductibles, or any other associated fees that come with this repair.  This was the warranty that was offered with the vehicle, I did not go out and seek this.  As for me accepting the transmission that was offered, I HAD NO OTHER OPTION.  I have to have a vehicle to get and back and forth.   
 
As a customer of theirs, and even after speaking to the repair facility they had NEVER spoken to any other warranty company that was cheap in replacing a customers parts.  Bottom line is this company knows my warranty runs out on December 16th or when I reach a certain amount of miles.  This has been the only claim I have ever made towards this company, and  I feel as if they simply just do not care about their customers.  Because if they did they would have made the decision to replace the transmission with a new one, or place an extended warranty on their used part.  Even on their own website they advertise that their parts are warranted.  So why is this not being honored by their company?  I have attached an actual picture from their own website.  
 
In close, I never said that this company was a rip off.  I feel like that, but I never stated it.  What I said was " I will be contacting the Better Business Bureau".  He  (*****) chuckled and hung up on me.  I am sure that the conversation was recorded and if so I will sign any document if needed to release such conversation.  

Regards,

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

10/9/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I brought a used jeep from ******* **** ****** and which I had to turn another car a VW bettle bug back to this same dealer. The reason being was that the VW was a lemon and we had invested atlest four thosand dollars into this car before we was told by the vw dealer that this car was a lemon, and to take the car back to the seller. We were then given 2,100 hunderd dollars back as long as we purchase some other car from them. So we Purchase the 2004 jeep liberty in which we had to pay out another 3,500 hundred dollars. We were told by the seller that the cars contract would be a longer contract then the one that was given with the VW.I have only had the jeep a month, and the thermostat, went bad . When I called cars service contract I was told that they would not be covering any of the repairs, even though the thermostat is covered by the service contract. I then said that this is a bougas contract and I would be writting to BBB. The dealership is dodge chryslar of **** ****************** I was told by the service represted Mr. ***** that he has never heard of a warrenty that states they cover the repair but refuse to cover it eventhough its on the contract.My car broke down in Erie Penn and I had to leave the jeep and catch a train back home. The warrenty has no statments saying that their is an amount for which the service contract will or will not pay for the repair of a thermostat.If I had to pay out pocket for this service which is 356.00. I fill that the service should pay atleast 256.00 of the repair and I pay my one hundred dollar deductable.I feel I should be refunded the amount of 256.00 dollars and this compant should be investagated for fraud on their contract.

Desired Settlement: I would like a two hundred fifty six dollors refund and a investagation on these cars contracts there breaking the law and I feel I"m not the first to complain.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 29, 2014, enclosing the above­referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On August 9, 2014, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles), which was accepted with payment by CARS on August 12, 2014 (the attached "Service Contract").

On September 29, 2014 at 9:33 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the thermostat. During the processing of the claim, the repair facility advised that the thermostat would not open and that the radiator needed flushed. After the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and extent of damage, we went over the amount we could authorize for the repair pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract as follows: We could supply a thermostat for $23.70. Mitchells OnDemand stated that the above repair would take .9 hours and the customer’s service contract paid up to $50.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $45.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible.

The total value of the thermostat claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract was $68.70, which was less than the $100.00 deductible; therefore, it would be the customer's sole responsibility to repair the thermostat. Additionally, radiators are non-covered components under the customer’s service contract. Here, the repair facility advised that the radiator was not failed, but only needed flushed. The flushing of the radiator is a maintenance item and also the customer's responsibility for repair.

Please be advised that 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 what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and times and also the deductible.

CARS processed the customer's September 29, 2014 claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of his service contract. In summary, based upon the thermostat price (i.e. $23.70) and the labor time (i.e. 0.9 hours @ $50.00 per hour=$45.00], this repair was less than the customer’s deductible and his sole responsibility to repair.

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,

***** ******** I rebuttle this contract warrenty because I feel that the warrenty company was set on only paying for what the felt should be paid. Which they new was not covered because  because of the price. I feel  this is a warrenty that is being sold that really has no coverage value at all. I will be faxing a copy of said warrenty because ,would a consumer buy a warrenty that has no price on the parts that the warrent use hell no like I said this is a bogus warrenty.BBB should really stop these companys from selling warrentys that reall do'nt cover what they say the cover I need a fax number for your BBB head quarters.

Thak BBB for responding so fast.

9/30/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 4 year warranty along with a used car in 2012. Since then I have sold the car and bought a another used car with the understanding that I would not be able to transfer the warranty. When I bought the warranty in 2012 I was told that if I sold the car, I would be able to call Cars Protection Plus and get a refund for the remaining amount of the warranty that I already paid for (2 years left on the warranty). I had previously done this on a used Nissan at the Nissan dealer.I called Cars Protection Plus to get the refund and was told that they do not do refunds. So in summary; I bought a used car and 4 year warranty in 2012, sold the car in 2014, and because Cars Protection Plus will not refund my money and the warranty cannot be transferred, I have 2 years on an auto warranty and no car to use it on.

Desired Settlement: The warranty is paid in full and I cannot use the warranty for anything. A supplementary warranty company should not be able to tell me when I can or cannot sell my car. I would like my refund on the remaining balance of my warranty.

Business Response:

Dear Ms. ******:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 11, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner:

On October 20, 2012, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that same date, he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer's service contract was received with payment and approved by CARS on October 24, 2012 (the attached "Service Contract”].

On September 10, 2014 at 2:29 p.m. the customer contacted CARS advising that he sold the vehicle and was now inquiring about a prorated refund for the remainder of his contract. During that telephone call, we advised that customer that pursuant to the terms and conditions and cancellation provisions of his service contract, he was not entitled to any refund.

By the customer's signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The cancellation provisions of the customer's service contract state: "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..."

Please be advised that CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where state statutes supersede our cancellation provisions. Here, CARS is not directed by any Pennsylvania state statute to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation 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.

9/29/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I paid 2200 for the ultimate plus warranty. That warranty clearly states that it covers calipers. I am at a shop and they requested the calipers be repaired and covered under the warranty. I contacted cars extended warranty company and they explained that they were not covered only because of the damage was a result of corrosion of the part. Believe this is deceptive advertising and I would like this company to be investigated for this issue.I asked the young lady I spoke to named ***** for the contact information for the legal department after I explained to her that I was going to file a complaint with the BBB and she hung up on me

Desired Settlement: I would like the cost of the warranty that I paid for reimbursed in full or I would like the over 1100 quote to replace all of the calipers paid for in full by this warranty company as I do believe that they have acted in bad faith with their deceptive

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 2, 2014, 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 July 15, 2011. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Limited Warranty (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer's service contract on August 4, 2011. (See attached Service Contract).

On September 2, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically with the vehicle’s front and rear brake calipers. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle stated that "both rear slide pins were rusted solid, and the front pistons would not work properly due to corrosion buildup." As a result of rusting and corrosion, we advised the repair facility that we were not able to assist with the repair of the customer's front and rear calipers pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract.

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. It is stated at under terms and conditions: COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage from conditions of the environment, including rust and corrosion" and "Damage resulting from improperly maintaining or failing to maintain the vehicle." Here, as evidenced in the above paragraphs, the repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that the failures to the customer's vehicle were due to rust and corrosion.

Each and every CARS customer has a duty to maintain their vehicle (i.e. fluids, oil, hoses, brakes, etc.). Based upon the repair facility’s findings, the failures to the customer's vehicle were caused by the failure of the customer to maintain the vehicle.

Additionally, the customer has requested a refund for his service contract. The state of Texas does allow for a prorated refund of the customer's service contract, less any claims paid. CARS' service contracts are sold wholesale through the selling dealers. Therefore, based upon the amount of money CARS received from the selling dealer for the customer's service contract and since CARS has paid a previous claim in the amount of $792.00 in 2012; there is no refund available to the customer.

Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind its original decision and we are unable to assist with this claim and we are also unable to offer the customer any refund. Furthermore, CARS did not act in bad faith nor were our practices deceptive; CARS simply complied with 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.

9/26/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought a used BMW X3 on 4/18/2014, after having it for 3 months I decided I did not like it, so I sold it. I also bought a 4 year Service Contract, and paid $1899.00 for it. I sold the BMW on 7/19/2014, which was 3 months later. I contacted CARS, and spoke with ***** at phone number ###-###-####. He stated that they would issue a refund minus a service fee, not to exceed $50.00, and a prorated MONTHLY fee, and less any claims paid. I had the vehicle for 3 months, and filed no claims. I asked via email what the refund amount would be, he told me to contact the dealer, I asked what the prorated monthly fee would be via a second email, he told me to contact the dealer. I finally received a check for a little over $700. Based on my math I paid 1899.00 the the 4 years, which is 39.56 per month, times 3 months, equals $118.68, plus the $50.00 service fee, grand total $168.18, from $1899, should have been a refund of $1730.32. I then tried to call to discuss the matter on the phone, and the company kept hanging up on me, they were able to see my number on the caller ID, and they would just disconnect the call.This is very unprofessional, and they need to learn to treat their customers better. I as the customer is the one who paid $1899 for a 4 years service contract, and that means I deserve to be treated with respect. I also have the right to ask, and know what the fee for a monthly prorated service plan costs.

Desired Settlement: I would like for ***** in Payment Processing to send me a written apology, as well as the owner, I would also like to know that they will incorporate some sort of customer service plan, so that other customers are not treated as I was.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 8, 2014, 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 April 18, 2014. On that same date he applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer's service contract on April 21, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On July 21, 2014 CARS received a Coverage Cancellation Request from the customer advising that he sold the vehicle and was requesting a prorated refund of the balance of his service contract coverage. A copy of the Coverage Cancellation Request is attached for your review.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions, as well as the cancellation provisions contained on the customer's service contract, a prorated refund check no. ****** was then mailed to the selling dealer. The customer’s prorated refund was based upon the amount of money CARS received from the selling dealer for the wholesale cost of the customer's service contract, less three (3) months proration, less a $50.00 service fee. The refund check was sent to the selling dealer to provide the selling dealer the opportunity to also refund the customer his prorated portion of the markup/profit he received from the cost of the customer's service contract.

Thereafter, CARS received multiple emails on September 2, 2014 through September 4, 2014, from the customer requesting information on his refund. Specifically, on September 2, 2014 we received an email from the customer requesting the exact amount of the check that we submitted to the selling dealer. Our representative from payment processing emailed the customer advising that CARS refund check was based upon the amount of money CARS received from the selling dealer at the time of purchase and advised the customer to contact the selling dealer for the amount of refund he was owed. Subsequently, the customer emailed CARS again on September 4, 2014 referencing foul language and demanding that we disclose the amount of the refund. A copy of the emails are also attached for your review.

B
y the customer’s signature, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. His 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." 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."

Based upon the cancellation provisions and state statute, the customer was eligible for a prorated refund. Therefore, after receiving the customer's Coverage Cancellation Request, CARS promptly issued a prorated refund check no. ****** on July 23, 2014 to the selling dealer. At the time the refund check was mailed to the dealer, we also provided the selling dealer with a letter advising the selling dealer of their proration refund that would be due to the customer.

Please be advised that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale between selling dealers and CARS. The wholesale costs of our service contract are also between the selling dealers and CARS and are not made public. In this instance, the selling dealer that sold the customer the vehicle and service contract did make a profit on the customer's service contract. Therefore, any issues with regard to his refund are between the customer and the selling dealer.

At this time, I would also like to address the customer’s concerns in his complaint that we continually hung up on him and also that CARS owes him an apology. Please be advised that CARS is a professional company and we process thousands of calls each and every day. Our staff would not intentionally hang up on any customer, unless the customer was using foul language or verbally abusing our employees. As you can see from the above information, our CARS representative addressed the customer's concerns; however, the customer became angry when he did not receive the answer to his questions. Therefore, CARS has fulfilled all its obligations to the customer regarding his 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.

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 never once used foul language, as a matter fact, I used characters instead of foul  language, however, the characters were used to make a point, that I merely wanted to know what my prorated fee should have been for 3 months of use of the contract.  Which I still do not know the answer to, I was told by my dealer that CARS Plus withholds 1 year as a prorate for the 1st year, no matter how many months were used.   


If you look at the dates of the emails in question, the 1st and second one are spaced out almost 1 month apart, then I sent the last few within one day of each other.   As I was trying to find out how much my refund should have been.  I was given a check for a little over seven hundred dollars from my dealer, and he stated that CARS PLUS deducted the rest as my prorated amount, so that is why I was trying to find out what my monthly prorated amount was.   

When the representative said he could not tell me how much was refunded, then I asked another question, which was how much was deducted for each month I had the warranty.   I do not feel that question breaches the dealership, CARS PLUS agreement, as it would allow me to do my own math based on what I paid for my warranty. 

To address the handing up on me, I never spoke to anyone on the phone at all, so there was never a reason for them to not answer my calls, however, from the minute, I received the check from my dealer, until I filed my complain with the BBB, I called 1 *** *** **** at least 10 times, and each time i called from my cell phone, which that is the number they had on file, and the number would ring 1 to 2 times, then disconnect.  

I still would like to know that they are going to hold training to ensure that customers are not treated as I was.  I think that customers deserve to know what the prorated amount is when there is a refund due.  I do not think that is privileged info between the dealer and Cars plus.  I also still feel i am due a written apology, for having my calls hung up on.  

Regards,

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

Business Response: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 24, 2014, enclosing the additional concerns of the above-referenced consumer complaint. To reiterate, CARS service contracts are sold wholesale between selling dealers and CARS, which wholesale prices are only between the selling dealers and CARS and are not made public. Here, the selling dealer that sold the customer the vehicle and service contract made a profit on the service contract. CARS does not disclose wholesale service contract costs received from any of our selling dealers. Therefore, any remaining issues the customer has regarding his refund are between the customer and the selling dealer only.
I would also like to address the customer’s concerns that we continually hung up on him and still owe a written apology. Please be advised that every incoming telephone call to CARS is answered by our receptionist, unless during the initial recording the customer dials a direct extension. All CARS' incoming telephone calls are documented through *********, whether they go through our receptionist or to a specific employee extension. ********* documents the specific dates, times and the length of time of all incoming calls. ********* also documents which extension each telephone call is directed.
I took the liberty of running a ********* report using the telephone number that the customer provided on his service contract, as well as the telephone number that he provided on his BBB complaint. A copy of the report is attached. As you can see from the report, there was only one (1) telephone call received by the customer on July 21, 2014 at 4:34 p.m., to our receptionist. This conversation was 14 seconds long and then the customer's call was transferred to extension ***. That conversation was 4 minutes and 32 seconds long.
I would also like to address the customer’s statement that he did not use foul language. While he did not specifically write out the profanities, his intent was clear. CARS employees will not be subject to any verbal, written or implied profanities.

Therefore, CARS stands behind our original position and will not disclose the amount of our prorated refund. Additionally, we have properly established our position regarding the customer's calls. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Consumer Response: I am not happy with the reply, as I still feel that I am due an apology, however, I am done dealing with this issue, I do not have the time, or effort to keep going back and forth.

I have shown that I should have been told what the amount they prorated for me for for the 3 months, as that in no way violates the agreement with the dealer.

I also know I was hung up on, more than once.  I have no reason to make a false claim.   I was informed by the dealer, that as soon as CARS PLUS, mails the refund check, they no longer feel that you are a customer, and they then refuse all contact with you.  Which is what I feel happened to me, as I had the refund check in my hand when I called them, so they in turn, did not feel they had any obligation  to deal with me, as I was no longer a customer.

Again, I am willing to close this case, but I am not, and did not find the response satisfactory.

9/22/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: payed for service contract. put car in shop to be fixed car was in the shop for a week or more was in a rental car waiting for my car to be fixed no respond from cars protection plus so payed for diagnosed test and hood to be fixed and cancel my service contract. will not discuss my refund with menone

Desired Settlement: none

Consumer Response: I wood like s refund. 

Business Response: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 28, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the dealer submitted to CARS an Ultimate Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) application on behalf of the customer on July 9, 2013. On that same date, CARS approved with payment the customer's service contract (the attached "Service Contract”). On August 11, 2 014 at 4:04 p.m., a claim was opened by a repair facility regarding issues with the customer's vehicle, specifically the hood cables, struts, thermostat, and vacuum pump. We then went over our claim procedures. On August 12, 2 014 at 2:36 p.m., we advised repair facility of the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the thermostat for $50.00 and $24.98 toward coolant for a total of $74.98. Mitchell’s OnDemand Labor Guide stated that the repair should take 3.2 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $125.00 per hour. Therefore, the total labor cost was $400.00. We explained that the total value of the claim was $474.98, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $400.00 towards labor or pay $474.98 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The other components in need of repair (i.e. hood cables trusts and vacuum pump) were not listed as a covered component pursuant to the service contract; therefore, they were the sole responsibility of the customer to repair. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer's decision. On that that same day, the repair facility advised us that the customer wanted to take our money allowance for the repair. CARS then issued the repair facility an Authorization Number for the repair, which was valid for 180 days. Thereafter, on August 19, 2 014 CARS received a service coverage cancellation request from the customer supplying the lienholder's name and address. Pursuant to the customer's cancellation request, CARS mailed a prorated refund check to the lienholder in the amount of $510.06. This refund amount was based upon the $2,400.00 the customer paid for the service contract, less $1,400.00 representing fourteen (14) months proration, less 10% cancellation fee in the amount of $14.96, less the claim authorized in the amount of $474.98 as stated above. At the time we processed the refund, CARS was unaware that the repairs were not completed.   

On the same date we received this complaint, CARS also received a letter from the customer’s lienholder returning the check in the amount of $510.06, advising that the customer's lien had been paid off. CARS then contacted the repair facility to verify if the authorized repairs were performed on the vehicle. The repair facility advised that n o repairs were performed; therefore, our claims manager cancelled the Authorization Number given for the repair and also cancelled the claim. Based upon this new information, CARS recalculated the prorated refund now due and owing to the customer as follows: Customer's cost of service contract - $2,400.00 Less 14 months proration @ $100.00 per month - ($1,400.00] Less Service Fee - f$ 14.96) In a good will gesture, CARS did not change the 10% service fee, which was originally based on the prorated refund of $510.06 originally sent to the lienholder and not on the actual refund above listed. If CARS would have properly calculated the 10% service fee based upon the new refund amount, said service fee would have been significantly higher, thereby reducing the customer's prorated refund. I would like to further address the customer's concerns as follows: 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. It is n o t comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customers what is specifically covered and their financial responsibility for diagnosis charges beyond the available coverage, taxes, the difference in labor rates and time. Here, as stated above, some of the items in need of repair were not listed for coverage under the customer's Ultimate Plus Service Contract; therefore, those repairs would have been the sole responsibility of the customer to repair. I believe that CARS has adequately addressed and also resolved all of the customers' concerns. The customer’s refund check in the amount of $985.04 is being processed and will be mailed directly to their address sometime this week, once the same is drafted by our accounts payable department. 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. TOTAL REFUND DUE CUSTOMER $ 985.04 Sincerely,

9/10/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought this car from a ******** **** ***** dealer 19 days ago... (Please see attached documents for complete text).

Desired Settlement: ...I talked to the insurance (C.A.R.S Protection Plus) and they don't want to cover some of the issues mentioned on the insurance contract. DESIRED SETTLEMENT: Return the car and get my money back. (Please see attached documents for complete text).

Business Response:

Attached please find CARS' response to Complaint ID #********.

Thank you.

 

8/26/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: August 1, 2014, I purchased a 2003 Toyota Camry from ***** ****** **** ***** ** ********* **. I purchased the vehicle with warranty that was through Cars Protection Plus. July 16th 2014 my car transmission went out. I had my car towed to ********* ****** ** ****** ******* **. and gave **** from the service department the warranty information. I received a return call from **** from ********* and he stated that the warranty company was giving him the run and around and that maybe I should call. I called Cars Protection Plus on 7/21/14 I spoke to **** did not seem concerned at all about addressing my claim. I asked if he would please send out an inspector. He refused. I then called my insurance company and filed a claimed they sent an inspector out the next day. They determined that because it was internal issue that they would not cover. I called **** back on 7/24/14 to let him know what the Insurance said he did agree finally to talk with the dealership to arrange for inspection. After several days I received a call from the dealership telling me the warranty company would not cover. I heard no word of a decision from the warranty company only a call asking about my tires. I called and asked for the claims Supervisor and spoke with ****** on 8/1/14. I proceeded to tell my story and was constantly interrupted without being able to explain what happened. Again I was treated unkind by this company and was told the warranty would not cover because of a change in tires. I asked why the company didnt do a vehicle history report to see if prior damage was done to vehicle or if vehicle had prior issues. I explained the vehicle history report I had showed the car had been in an accident. I was told he was sure the damage was not caused by the accident I then asked how then can you be sure changing tires would cause transmission issues. I then stated to him I was told by dealership and a transmission shop that changing tires would not cause that sort of damage. I also stated to ****** that his company seemed reluctant from the beginning to do anything to assist and this was before inspection. This company showed no concern from start to finish and acted as if I deliberately cause damage to my own vehicle. I believe this company did not honor their warranty commitment and was bad with customer service. I am an honest person in a difficult situation. A little further investigation may have provided information that I did indeed purchase this vehicle with damage unknown. I felt as if this company wanted to find a way out of being responsible. I would like a refund if possible for payment of the warranty. Thank you for your time and investigation into this matter.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of warranty payment which was paid with cost of purchase of vehicle.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 1, 2014, 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 April 25, 2014. On that same date she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles] and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on April 28, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On July 17, 2014 at 3:06 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 claim procedures in detail with the repair facility and 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 additionally advised that the repair facility was to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of component failure and contact us with their findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle.

On July 21, 2014 at 3:56 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising that the repair facility told her the vehicle had been in an accident previously and some damage was still evident. CARS then advised if the failure to her vehicle was caused by an accident, we would not be able to assist with the claim and went over her service contract coverage in detail. The customer then requested that CARS send an inspector to look at her vehicle. We explained that we required a cause of failure and the extent of damage to her vehicle from the repair facility before it would be determined if an independent inspection was necessary to verify the repair facility's findings. The customer then became upset and called us a scam. We again reviewed that diagnostic/teardown costs were her responsibility pursuant to her service contract.

Thereafter on July 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., we received another telephone call from the customer advising that her insurance company sent an adjustor to look at her vehicle and they determined the failure was caused by a component inside the vehicle. She requested that we call the repair facility. CARS then contacted the repair facility, wherein they advised that no tear down had been performed on the vehicle. We again reviewed our claim procedures and the requirement for teardown to the point of component failure. The repair facility agreed to call us with their findings.

On July 24, 2014 at 4:20 p.m., the repair facility advised us that the customer’s vehicle was not apart; however, the technician stated that he could see that the cause of failure was a broken pin in the spider gears. We then explained that CARS would only pay for one independent inspection and there would be a fee to the customer for a second inspection if the cause of failure and extent of damage cannot be verified.

The independent inspection occurred on July 28, 2014. The independent inspector found the vehicle to have oversize wheels/tires. In addition, the independent inspector also found that the further teardown would be required to verify the exact cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer's vehicle.

On July 29, 2014 at 11:35 a.m., in a recorded telephone call the customer advised CARS that she put the oversized wheels/tires on the vehicle after the purchase date.

On July 29, 2014 at 1:21 p.m., we left a message for the repair facility advising that we were unable to assist with the July 17, 2014 transmission claim because the customer's vehicle was altered/modified with oversized wheels/tires. We then attempted to call the customer but we were unable to reach her at the telephone number on her service contract.

On August 1, 2014 at 11:32 p.m., our claims manager attempted to go over the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract with her; however, she advised that since CARS would not change its mind she would not listen to him.

By the customer's signature on her service contract, she acknowledged that she 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 July 17, 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.

Here, we would like to point out that in the consumer's complaint she states that CARS did not care about addressing her claim and we would not inspect her vehicle. As evidenced in the above paragraphs, we thoroughly explained to the customer and the repair facility that the vehicle


inspection of the customer's vehicle was needed to verify the repair facility's findings, the customer's vehicle was not torn down to the point of component failure and the extent of damage could not be shown to the independent inspector.

It clearly 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 is covered. As stated in the above paragraphs, the repair facility chosen by the customer did not show the independent inspector a verified failure of a covered component pursuant to the customer's service contract. Additionally, since the independent inspector found that the customer altered/modified the vehicle from the manufacturer’s specifications, CARS was unable to assist with the transmission claim and correctly cancelled her service contract.

In addition, 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 clearly stated in the terms and conditions of the service contract, the customer is not entitled to a refund of her service contract.

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. 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. Furthermore, the service contract expired on July 28, 2014; therefore, 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.

8/26/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was sold a warranty provided by Cars protection plus for $895.00 when I purchased my 2004 jeep grand cherokee. When went to file my first claim for the transfer case that is covered they told me they offer cash value of a used part or send a used part to the service shop. I had them send the used part. When it arrived it was broken so the shop had to take part from my old case at my expense for the labor to swap parts. Once the case was repaired and installed it was immediately apparent this transfer case was in worse condition then the old one. They offer to send another used case if I wanted to pay the labor to take it out and shipping back and fourth. At this point I did not want any more abuse from this company. To date the experience cost me 400.00 and loss of use of the vehicle for 5 weeks. The transfer case Cars sent is so bad I barely can drive the vehicle. I have put in a request to cancel the service contract and be refund the full amount. They advised me they will refund the balance less the claim that was paid, service fee, and pro-rated fee for time the contract was is service. This amount which they will not disclose will be credited back to my loan. I feel this company is selling fraud and must be stopped.

Desired Settlement: Cars has sold me a service contract that has made my car worse then it was. It is going to cost $1200.00 to rebuild the transfer case they sent. I want a full refund for the service contract price for $895.00 plus the $400.00 I paid through the claim procedures. This amount can be credited back to my vehicle car loan.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated July 31, 2014, 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 the date of purchase, the customer’s vehicle registered 97,774 miles on the odometer. On that same date she applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles) and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on January 21, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

Two (2) claims have been opened since the inception of the customer’s service contract:

FIRST CLAIM: On January 27, 2014 at 2:57 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front differential and transfer case issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle registered 98,819 miles on the odometer. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

After CARS was notified by the repair facility of the cause of failure and received an estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the transfer case for $300.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take 2.1 hours to complete, and the customer’s service contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $105.00. 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 $305.00, and we could supply the part as stated above and pay $5.00 towards labor or pay $305.00 towards the repair of the customer's choice. The customer advised CARS to have us ship the supplied transfer case.

On February 6, 2014 at 2:01 p.m., the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair her vehicle notified CARS that the tail housing was cracked and the bolts were bent on our supplied transfer case. They further advised that they could swap out parts for the supplied transfer case. We then advised them to call us back with the cost.

On February 7, 2014 at 11:35 a.m., the customer advised CARS that she agreed to use the supplied transfer case, with certain parts on the transfer case replaced by the repair facility. The repair facility advised us that the cost of repairing the supplied transfer case would be $85.00 for parts and 3.5 hours additional labor. CARS advised that our supplier would pay the $85.00 toward the repair and that CARS would now authorize $282.50 for labor. The claim was subject to a $100.00 deductible; therefore, CARS could pay $182.50 toward labor. With the additional monies towards the additional labor, the customer’s claim was now authorized by CARS for a total of $482.50. Our parts supplier was also to pay the repair facility the amount of $85.00 directly for their supplied parts to repair their supplied transfer case.

After CARS received the final invoice from the repair facility advising that the repairs were completed, pursuant to the above-referenced claim allowance, CARS paid the repair facility via credit the amount of $182.50. CARS subsequently also paid our parts supplier for the cost of the transfer case in the amount of $300.00. The claim was then closed.

Thereafter, on February 25, 2014 at 2:53 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS and advised that the vehicle was making noise. We advised the customer to return the vehicle to the repair facility that performed the repairs and have a new claim opened.

Over a month later, on April 4, 2014 at 4:11 p.m. the customer again telephoned CARS to advise that she was still experiencing transfer case issues. We again went over our claim procedures, wherein the customer advised that she was taking the vehicle to the repair facility on that date; however, no new claim was opened at that time.

Approximately one (1) month later, on May 1, 2014 at 10:58 a.m. the customer telephoned CARS and advised us she was experiencing front and rear differential issues and would call CARS when her vehicle was at a repair facility. Later that same day, a customer service representative spoke to customer's boyfriend and reviewed the claims procedures. The customer's boyfriend was upset that the vehicle had to stay at the repair facility while a claim was open. After he stated that he wanted to cancel the service contract, he was transferred to the cancellation department.

On May 6, 2014 at 2:40 p.m., a customer service representative advised the customer's boyfriend of CARS’ cancellation policy. We then emailed a cancellation request form to the customer's supplied email address.

SECOND CLAIM: On May 9, 2014 at 1:25 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing front and rear differential issues. The repair facility further advised that the customer's vehicle registered 101,803 miles on the odometer. According to our records 2.984 miles were driven on the vehicle since the first claim was opened on January 27, 2014. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised them to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of failure and contact us with their findings prior to beginning any work on the vehicle.

During the processing of the claim, we advised the customer's boyfriend that without a cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle we could not move forward with the claim. The customer’s boyfriend requested an exception to the tear down requirements on the vehicle. We advised of our reasons for needing a cause of failure and extent of damages, wherein he then stated that he was familiar with our tactics and hung up on our claims adjustor. After thirty (30) days without any further communication from the customer or the repair facility, the claim was then closed.

On July 31, 2014 during three (3) separate telephone calls, the customer's boyfriend advised CARS that he was not satisfied with the service contract and wanted to cancel. During these telephone conversations, the customer’s boyfriend would not allow us to review the terms and conditions of our service contracts with him.

Please be advised that by the customer's signature on her service contract application, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. It is stated at Paragraph l(o): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED:                                                                           Damage resulting from

improperly maintaining or failing to maintain the vehicle.Here, as evidenced in the above paragraphs, the customer and her boyfriend were told multiple times by CARS to have a new claim opened. Additionally, they also stated that new claims were going to be opened; however, there was no new claim opened until May 9, 2014: four (4) months after the first claim was opened. To reiterate, after the first claim was opened, authorized and paid, the customer continued to drive the vehicle an additional 2.984 miles, while stating that her vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. It was the responsibility of the customer to take the vehicle to a repair facility and open a claim to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage.

In addition, the customer’s service contract states at Paragraph 3(c):                               "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." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine exactly what caused the failure and the extent of damage to the vehicle. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We were not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis of the customer's vehicle. Stated more accurately, we were only trying to determine the cause of failure and extent of damage. During the May 9, 2014 conversation with the customer’s boyfriend, he requested that CARS bend the rules and not require the tear down of the vehicle. When we advised that we could not honor his request, we had no further communication with the customer, her boyfriend, or the repair facility for over thirty (30) days and the claim was then closed.

In the customer's consumer complaint, the customer is requesting a refund of the amount she paid for her service contract. Please be advised that 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 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.” Since CARS paid a claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle which exceeded the wholesale purchase price paid for the service contract to CARS by the selling dealer, there is no refund available from CARS. Any additional refund the customer feels is due them from the dealer is between the customer and the dealer.

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 to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of her service contract.

Please further be advised that CARS since this complaint was received, CARS received a cancellation request from the customer to cancel her service contract coverage. Therefore, as of this date, the customer’s service contract is cancelled and her vehicle no longer has CARS service contract coverage.

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 had recently filled a complaint about cars protection plus but was unable to respond to the reply due to email carrier issues. I just received replies 8/24/14. This complaint is not resolved. This is my reply to them. When I picked up the vehicle 2/12/14 and the transfer case Cars provided was making worse grinding noises then the the original unit I called the shop within 1 hour of picking up the vehicle and told them it was worse than when I brought it in they advised me to drive it to work in the fluid. I did so for three days and the grinding noise only got worse. On the forth day after picking up the vehicle I contacted my claims adjuster at Cars at ext.*** ***** is his name. He told me I could take the vehicle back to the shop and open a new claim and pay again 100.00 deductible and cost to tear down the transfer case Cars had just sent a week prior. At this point I determined Cars method of doing business is an absolute waste of time and money. I have since ordered a remanufactured transfer case for 795.00 and had it installed for less then it cost to do the broken transfer case Cars had sent and it is perfect now. I want all the cost of of the fraud that has been forced on me 295.00 for the transfer case claim and the cost of the service contract 895.00 all refunded to my loan. If they are not willing to do that I will follow through getting all of the other complaints together against this company that have not been resolved fairly and we will all take them to court.
 
Please refund the amount of $1195.00 what it has cost me to repair my vehicle improperly doing business with Cars protection plus.

 

 

 

8/1/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Have a three month service contract and decline to fix the main problems when we took it ***** in town Car quit the first day needs to replace camshaft sensor replace rack and pinion flush power steering

Desired Settlement: Paid the 60 dollArs a hr labor and parts they warranty

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated July 29, 2014, 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 lulv 1. 2014. On that same date he applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received by CARS and approved with payment on lulv 7. 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On July 25, 2014 at 1:13 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the rack & pinion, cam sensor, alignment & flush. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

In a subsequent telephone call with the repair facility on that same date, they advised that prior to the July 25, 2014 claim being opened, the customer previously returned the vehicle to the dealer regarding the mechanical issues; however, the dealer did not rectify the issues.

During the processing of the claim, the customer clearly and concisely advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on July 25, 2014 at 4:20 p.m., that the vehicle was actually purchased on June 30, 2014 and just one day after purchase (i.e. July 1, 2014), the vehicle began to experience mechanical problems, which was the same day that the customer applied for the Service Contract as stated above.

On July 28, 2014 at 9:06 a.m., 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, since the information provided by the customer stating that the failures were prior to CARS receiving with payment and approving the customer's service contract on lulv 7. 2014. Therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the above-referenced vehicle pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract.

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 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, 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.”

As stated previously, during the July 28, 2014 recorded telephone call, the customer stated he began to experience issues with just one (1) day after the June 30, 2014 vehicle purchased date. Please be advised that 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.

For the reason stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and is unable to assist with the July 25, 2014, claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. However, the customer has service contract coverage on his vehicle through October 7, 2014. Should the customer 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 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.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

Regards,

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

 

 

7/16/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: In my opinion, C.A.R.S Protection Plus Service Contracts are written in a very deceiving format. Contract states all lubricated parts within the engine are covered on front page with fine print terms and conditions on back page preventing claim approvals.

Desired Settlement: If possible, a refund for the remaining 24 months on my 36 month service contract. Thank You!

Business Response:

I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: On July 8, 2013 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date he also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). On July 27, 2013 the service contract application was accepted with payment and approved by CARS (the attached “Service Contract”).

FIRST CLAIM: On August 19, 2013 at 11:28 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing water pump and power steering rack issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. Later that same day CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows:                                                                       We  could supply a water

pump for $111.19. Mitchell’s 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 $131.19 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $20.00 towards labor or pay $131.19 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that the customer chose to the allowance. CARS also went over the allowance including rack, with and without variable, and the related labor cost. However, it was the customer’s choice only to repair the water pump at that time. CARS then gave the repair facility an authorization to begin the water pump repair on the customer’s vehicle.

Upon receipt of the final invoice, CARS paid $131.19 to the repair facility via credit card pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

SECOND CLAIM: On April 28, 2014 at 3:44 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim the repair facility advised us that the engine was running rough and the timing chain may have jumped. On May 1, 2014 at 11:11 a.m., the customer advised that the he was moving his vehicle to a new repair facility.

THIRD CLAIM:        Almost two (2) months later, on June 17, 2014 at 2:28 p.m., we received a

telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing timing chain issues. We then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. Our claims adjuster then again went over claim procedures with the repair facility. We also 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 advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of component failure and contact us with their findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicle.

On July 2, 2014 at we received an estimate from the repair facility; however, no cause of failure was indicated for the timing chain, only that it was stretched. The estimate (attached) also stated that the catalytic converter was plugged and the cam position was off due to the timing chain. CARS then called the repair facility, and advised that there were several Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) on the timing chain issues.

On July 3, 2014 at 2:18 p.m., after a review of the TSB and the information provided by the repair facility, CARS advised the repair facility that we would be unable to assist with the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract.

On July 7, 2014 at 4:38 p.m., our claims adjustor explained to the customer that the timing chain is a known issue from GM; therefore, not covered under his service contract. The customer questioned who would read the fine print. We further advised that the catalytic converter is a non­covered component under the service contract. The customer then asked about the engine valves. We explained that the repair facility did not mention any issues with the valves; however, if the valve issues were a result of the timing chain issue or catalytic converter they would not be covered.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on his service contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. The terms and conditions of the service contract clearly 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 chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle advised CARS of the TSB bulletin.

In addition, it is clearly stated in the customer’s 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

catalytic converter is not listed as a covered component under the service contract.

Accordingly, CARS was correct in its decision regarding the June 17, 2014 timing chain claim and we are unable to offer assistance with the cost of said repair.

In his consumer complaint the customer is requesting a refund of the remainder of his 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 of the amount CARS’ received from the selling dealer if the customer’s vehicle currently has a lienholder and the customer is willing to sign a General Release before a notary as follows:


 


$ 799.00

$ 266.28 $ 131.19 $         50.00

$     351.53

Amount received from dealer for service contract:

Term of service contract - 36 months

Less twelve (12) months proration $22.19 per month

Less claims paid

Less service fee

Total refund owed by CARS


 


Please advise if the customer is agreeable to the refund and we will prepare a General Release for his execution.

In closing, I would like to advise 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.

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. 

7/14/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I took my vehicle to ***** transmission shop on the 10th of May and it was diagnosed with transmission issues so on the 12th of May they contacted CARS with the information.***** called and asked if I would allow the breakdown to further investigate per instructed by CARS rep, I agreed. Next they called CARS back to discuss the findings and a claim was started but they declined to pay for a rebuild and they would send a unit this was the 15th of May. I myself called CARS to ask about the rent a car that was apart of my warranty and in speaking with ***** he states the usage would only be for one day because thats the average time it takes to do the install of the unit.It is now the 23rd of May and no unit has been recieved by ***** transmission shop as of 12pm. I called the warranty holder each day but keep getting answering machines I did have one call back that stated the unit was sceduled to arrive on the 21st no later then the 22nd of May. I have had to find transportation to and from work and rides for my children that has to get to and from school during these 2 weeks

Desired Settlement: I would like a vehicle provided because there is no way they refused a rebuild then are taking their sweet time to get a unit delivered and I would also like to know what is the warranty on the unit they are providing because I do not need a failed transmission after I was informed they would only pay $280 and I have to come out of pocket $1300.00 for this repair which was a scam from purchase because the dealer said it was suppose to be a $100 deductable and coverage up to $3100.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 23, 2014, 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 11, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 12, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). The customer’s service contract expired on May 12, 2014.

On May 12, 2014 at 10:03 a.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission problems. We went over our claim procedures with the repair facility and advised that the customer’s permission was needed to tear down her vehicle to the point of failure so that the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle could be determined. We further advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, she was responsible for all tear down and diagnostic costs. Later that same day we advised the customer of the rental benefits pursuant to her service contract.

On May 14, 2014 at 1:44 p.m., the repair facility advised that the torque converter had failed and plugged the filter. CARS advised the repair facility to fax us an estimate.

After CARS received the estimate, we advised the repair facility of the amount CARS could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the transmission for $600.00. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 7.6 hours to complete and the service contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $380.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $880.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the transmission and pay $280.00 towards labor or pay $880.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that he would get back to us with the customer’s decision. We also explained that if the customer chose to have us ship our supplied transmission instead of taking the money allowance, CARS would not be able to give any warranty on the supplied transmission due to the service contract’s expiration date of May 12, 2014.

On May 15, 2014 the repair facility advised that the customer wanted CARS to ship the transmission to the repair facility. Later that day we ordered the transmission from our supplier. On May 16, 2014 we issued an authorization number to the repair facility for the repair of the customer’s vehicle. At that time we advised that the estimated delivery of the transmission was May 21, 2014. On May 21, 2014 in a voice message, we advised the customer of the estimated delivery date.

Please be advised that our supplier verified that the transmission was delivered to the repair facility on May 23, 2014.

Please be advised that 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 customer’s service contract clearly states at Paragraph 3(c): 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.” Here, CARS was 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. Therefore, it was appropriate and necessary for us to require tear down of the customer’s vehicle to determine the exact cause of failure and the extent of damage.

In addition, it is clearly stated at Paragraph 2(b):                   ‘PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE

CONTRACT:       Coverage begins the day this application is received with payment and

approved by C.A.R.S.. and 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 12, 2014; therefore, the transmission that was supplied to the customer by CARS does not have a warranty on parts and labor. This was explained to the repair facility when CARS went over the options that were available to the customer for CARS to assist with the transmission claim made on behalf of her vehicle.

The service contract clearly 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.” Also the service contract clearly 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 (transmission) was 7.6 hours based on Mitchell OnDemand Labor Guide; therefore, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customer was not eligible for rental benefits under her service contract.

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.

We would like to point out here that the customer was given the option of CARS supplying the transmission or taking the cash allowance, the customer advised that she wanted us to ship our part. We supplied both the repair facility and the customer with an estimated delivery date. CARS can only give the repair facility the estimated delivery date given to us by our suppliers. As stated above, pursuant to the terms and condition 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 information, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of her service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on May 12, 2014 and the customer’s vehicle no longer has 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.

Consumer Response:

Better Business Bureau:

I disagree with the warranty company when I purchased my vehicle with the warranty the contract was explained by the salesperson that the warranty covered up to the price of the purchase and all that would be paid out of pocket would be $100.00 I signed to what was explained if that was an untrue fact then the car dealership or the warranty company needs to get on the same business arrangement instead of trying to rip off the customer.C.A.R.S warranty refused to let ***** rebuilt the transmission and sent a used unit. The truck was returned to me on Friday May 30,2014 at 8:00pm I was asked to drive it and return in 10 days for feedback. On Saturday May 31,2014 I drove my vehicle and the RPM meter started spiraling out of control along with the speedometer and the truck started making loud noises and  I tried to pull over in Boyce Va and turned the vehicle off and it started jumping out of control I tried to restart it would not move in any gear and the sound was very loud after trying to turn it off.I had to have my vehicle towed but the ***** closest to Boyce was Winchester Va and they were closed and it was over 100 miles from Richmond and I had no transportation back home so I had the vehicle towed to the Fredericksburg Va which was 74 miles away but closer to home. The used transmission had me stranded on the road and if not for my insurance company I would have been stuck there. I need the warranty company to send a working unit not any trash they find for a cheaper price and to pay for the labor its gonna take to get my vehicle functional. This matter has become a bad situation because it should have been handled correctly from the start...The total cost of the service was 973.46 in which I paid almost $700.00.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 2, 2014, enclosing the consumer's additional concerns regarding the above-referenced complaint. As stated in our previous response, 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 her financial responsibility for tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

To reiterate, the customer acknowledged by her signature that she read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions contained on her service contract as follows: 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.” During the processing of the May 12, 2014 claim, we explained that the total value of the claim was $880.00, once the deductible was applied. We further explained that we could supply the transmission and pay $280.00 towards labor or pay $880.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. On May 15, 2014 the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to have CARS ship the transmission to the repair facility, even though we had previously advised that if she chose to have our transmission shipped, CARS would not be able to give any warranty on the supplied transmission due to the service contract’s expiration date of May 12, 2014. Again, at Paragraph 2(b): ‘PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT:   Coverage begins the day this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S.. and will last for the time period or mileage indicated, whichever occurs first, so long as you own the vehicle. Therefore, we are unable to assist with any further repairs for failures that occurred after the May 12, 2014 transmission claim was closed.

The customer also had the choice to take the cash allowance for the repair of the vehicle; however, she chose to take the supplied transmission rather than to use the cash allowance towards having the transmission rebuilt. It is clearly stated in the service contract that the coverage purchased was for a “used” part. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must give authorization to have a part rebuilt.

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statement regarding CARS trying to rip off customers. Please be advised that CARS processes hundreds of claims each day and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer’s mechanical claims. Please be further advised that CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 165 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved” by the BBB, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in thirty-one (31) states and at any given time our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force.

For all of the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to assist with any further repairs of the customer’s vehicle because her service contract expired on May 12. 2014. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Consumer Response: As the customer it is my right to voice how the situation was handled. There were no offers given to me from the repair shop only the statement that Cars would not allow the rebuild and that would be shipping a unit. Now whether the warranty expired on the 12th or not the issue was submitted before the claim lapsed and you cant just send anything and hope it will last til the next warranty is over. The transmission  lasted one day how is this not your responsibility. CARS chose to speak with the transmission shop instead of me there were not any choses given now I am without a vehicle yet again and they wont own up to the problem .I may have to seek legal advisor this is bad business it doesnt matter how many claims you have handled each caes should be handled accordingly   

Consumer Response: the facility is not going to touch the vehicle unless they know they will get paid for their labor my vehicle is still in Fredericksburg Va where no one is doing anything as of this date we are just going back and forth and there is no resolution in sight this is poor customer service . I need to do as stated get legal advice and if I have to find a means to have the transmission replaced on my own then I will see what legal rights I have for the unit mailed to the repair shop because I was told that there were no offers and I guess I have to get it in writing what was and was not decussed because again the repair shop says there was never options given....

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 6 2014, enclosing the consumer’s additional concerns regarding the above-referenced complaint.

We would like to point out here that CARS deals directly with the repair facility when a claim is processed because the repair facility is performing the repairs on the vehicle. On May 15. 2014 at 8:51 a.m.. CARS went over the options of how we could assist with the repair with the repair facility. The repair facility was to go over the options with the customer and advise us of her decision. The repair facility advised us that it was the customer’s choice to have CARS supply the transmission for her vehicle. If the customer had questions in regard to the claim allowance, she could have contacted her adjustor or our customer service department and we would have responded accordingly.

Please be advised that if the customer provides CARS with a receipt from the repair of her vehicle verifying that the transmission failed within one (1) day of her vehicle being returned to her, CARS will review the receipt from the repair facility.

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

me.

Consumer Response: I have read the proposal of closing the caes file but that is not enough time the repair shop in Fredericksburg has been trying to get information from the repair shop in Richmond and no one is taking ownership. In the end the repair shop said that the person that was dealing with my vehicle is no longer employed by ***** but they will start on the vehicle in about 4 days because of their schedule and will inform me then what the problem is/was. the timeline has to be extended to get this issue resolved the right way

7/7/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased and warranty from C.A.R.S Protection Plus. The warranty clearly states that the following brake components are covered: Under Brake components it list these items as being covered: Master cylinder; wheel cylinders, calipers, ABS hydraulic components; ABS speed sensors; and ABS control module. The following components are the only items listed as not covered under my warranty: drums rotors, pads, linings, hoses, lines and wiring.ABS hydraulic components consist of various components, of which the hydraulic brake booster is a component. The warranty states ABS hydraulic components are covered; therefore this should the booster should be covered. Furthermore, the warranty does not list that brake motors or trans pan gasket & connectors are not covered. However, C.A.R.S protection plus is refusing to cover these 3 things; the brake booster, the park brake motor and the trans pan gaset & connector. A copy of the warranty can be submitted it needed. Thank you.

Desired Settlement: Honor the warranty and cover the cost for the specified items that they are refusing to cover (ABS brake booster, park brake motor and trans pan gasket & connectors).

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On March 25 2013, 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 (the attached “Service Contract”).

Since the inception of the customer’s service contract coverage, third (3) mechanical claims were opened on behalf of the vehicle as follows:

FIRST CLAIM: On July 29, 2013 at 11:07 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the a/c compressor, and power steering pump. 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 as follows: We could supply the a/c compressor for $299.57, the a/c drier for $21.74 and the power steering pump for $104.24 we could allow $28.92 towards fluids. Mitchell’s 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 was $282.00. 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 $636.47 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $210.92 towards labor and fluids or pay $636.47 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The customer chose to have the parts shipped to the repair facility. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, CARS paid the repair facility a total of $210.92 towards labor and fluids as stated above via credit card. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM:        On September 9, 2013 at 4:06 p.m., CARS received a telephone call

from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the transmission pan gasket. We advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract the transmission pan gasket is a non-covered component under the service contract. We then closed the claim.

On September 24, 2014 at 3:54 p.m., a customer service representative advised the customer that the pursuant to the terms and conditions of her service contract the transmission pan gasket is a non-covered component under her service contract.

On December 13, 2013, the customer had three (3) telephone conversations with our customer service department. We were advised by a repair facility during those telephone conversations that that the calipers on the customer’s vehicle had already been replaced. We explained to the repair facility and the customer that any unauthorized repairs are not covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. We reviewed the terms and conditions and the procedures for opening a claim with the customer.

On June 10, 2014 at 9:36 a.m., the customer advised CARS that her repair facility informed her that they have been corresponding with CARS via fax and providing serial numbers for parts to us. We advised that this was not the case and that no claim had been opened on her vehicle at this time. We reviewed claim procedures and how to open a claim with the customer.

THIRD CLAIM:        On June 12, 2013 at 9:35 a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a

repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the transmission pan gasket, 02 sensor, transmission connector, brake booster, wheel bearings, and park brake motor. We then went over the claim procedures with the repair facility. During the processing of the claim we went over the amount we could authorize as follows: We could supply the 02 sensor for $76.71, and the left wheel bearing for $159.80. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.2 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor 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 $208.51 and we could supply the parts as stated above; however, we would not be able to assist with labor because the labor cost would be less than the deductible or pay $208.51 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised that they would call us with the customer’s decision. On that same day, the repair facility informed us that the customer chose to have the parts shipped to the repair facility. We then ordered the parts from our supplier and advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival date of the parts was June 16, 2014.

On June 17, 2014 at 1:46 p.m., a customer service representative again reviewed the terms and conditions of the service contract with the customer and explained that the brake booster is a non-covered component under the customer’s service contract. The customer argued that the booster was a hydraulic component and we once again we reviewed the terms and conditions with reviewed with her.

On June 17, 2014, at 1:55 p.m., the customer again called us to state she was upset that we were not offering assistance with the brake booster on her vehicle. Our customer service manager went over her service contract with her and once again reviewed non-covered components with her and explained that brake boosters are not covered under her service contract.

By the customer’s signature on her service contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. It is clearly stated in

the customer’s service contract:                  “Covered Components: “Coverage limited to above

components.” and under the Terms and Conditions: “Other than those components listed above, no other components are covered by the limited warranty regardless of failure.”

Here, the hydraulic brake booster, the transmission pan gasket, park brake motor, and connectors 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 parts.

Please also be advised that 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 is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any other further assistance with the June 12, 2014 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Please be advised the customer has service contract coverage for her vehicle through April 22, 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.

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,

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

 

 

7/3/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 01/30/14 I bought a 2001 Honda Accord automatic transmission with 129k miles at *** **** ***** ***. The dealer talked to me about CARS PROTECTION PLUS and they offered me a 3 months/4,500 miles service contract warranty telling me that if something goes wrong with the vehicle I can take it to any licensed mechanic and if they found out there is a covered component within the contract CARS PROTECTION PLUS will pay for the repair. I drove away happy and satisfied with the customer service at the car dealership. Unfortunately couple months later automatic transmission started to act strange and wasn't working the way it was supposed to work. I took the vehicle to a licensed repair shop and they found out automatic transmission was over heating. We called CARS PROTECTION PLUS and filed a claim. Vehicle was at the repair shop for over a month while the representatives from CARS PROTECTION PLUS were called back and forth for so many times and explaining them the problems found with the automatic transmission. The Contract that I signed with CARS PROTECTION PLUS stated clearly they will cover the expenses if something goes wrong within the transmission or transfer case housing. They asked one thousand questions asking WHY the automatic transmission went wrong. They even spoke with the mechanics at the repair shop. Then when the bill repair was sent it to CARS PROTECTION PLUS they refused to pay looking for excuses and saying the repair shop should not repair the vehicle without their authorization again, vehicle was there for over a month waiting for their authorization. Now they don't want to pay the repair bill stating that the dealer that sold me the contract only has sold one contract for them and the dealer needs to sell more contracts. I don't understand what does it have to do with this situation. I signed a contract with CARS PROTECTION PLUS and if the car dealer has sold one or two or ten contracts for them got nothing to do with this problem. They are just looking for excuses NOT to pay

Desired Settlement: CARS PROTECTION PLUS should pay for the repair bill of the vehicle. I signed a contract with them and they are just looking for excuses NOT to pay. They should honor their contract

Business Response:

I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: On January 30, 2014 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date he also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). On February 7, 2014 the service contract application was accepted with payment and approved by CARS (the attached “Service Contract”).

FIRST CLAIM:  On   March 31, 2014 at 2:51 p.m., a repair facility contacted CARS stating

that the customer’s vehicle had a transmission issue. During that telephone call, we explained how to open a claim and also explained the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

Thereafter a claim was opened on March 31, 2014 at 2:55 p.m., by the repair facility. Our claims adjuster then again went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facility. We also 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 advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of component 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. Additionally, our claims adjustor noted that there was a possible language barrier with working with the repair facility.

On April 14, 2014 at 3:48 p.m., we returned a telephone call to the repair facility asking several times during the recorded telephone call if the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle had been determined. The only response we could obtain from the repair facility was to give us the VIN number for the vehicle. The repair facility advised us that they would return our telephone call. Again the adjustor made note of a language barrier. A few minutes later, we again telephoned the repair facility and attempted to obtain the cause of failure in order to move forward with the claim. However, the person answering the telephone could not communicate with our claims adjustor and we explained that the customer’s vehicle must be moved to a repair facility where communication would not be a problem in order to move forward with the claim.

SECOND CLAIM: Thereafter on April 30, 2014 at 2:01 p.m., a new claim was opened by the same repair facility regarding the customer’s transmission issues. During a subsequent recorded telephone call that day the repair facility advised us that a new transmission was already installed in the customer’s vehicle. The repair facility then put the customer on the phone. We advised to the customer that due to the communication barrier, his vehicle would need to be moved to a facility capable of moving forward with the claim. The customer then advised us that he was there to translate and he also advised that the transmission had been replaced in his vehicle and the repair facility was waiting on payment from CARS.

On April 30, 2014 at 3:50 p.m., we left a voice mail for the repair facility advising that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract we were unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle because the repair to the vehicle was done without prior authorization.

Please be advised that 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 clearly 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 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 clearly 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 prior to the April 30, 2014 recorded telephone with the repair facility and the customer advising that the transmission had been replaced.

The claim procedures outlined on the 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 and the customer were fully aware that the repairs were performed prior to the April 30, 2014 telephone call would not be covered under the service contract. To reiterate, CARS was never given the opportunity to review the transmission claims to determine if the failed components were covered pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

Accordingly, 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.

For all the reasons stated above CARS stands behind its position and is unable to assist with the transmission claims made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Please be further advised that the customer’s service contract expired on May 7, 2014; and he no longer has 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.

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.

Claim was opened on March 31, 2014 where CARS advice the repair facility to obtain customer's permission to tear down and diagnose to the point of component failure and contact CARS with the repair facility finding and estimates. Same day I have given the repair facility the authorization to do what CARS asked. In order to tear down and diagnose the transmission car has to be on the mechanic's lift. Repair facility called and called and called CARS adjuster for many days to tell them the problem with the vehicle and every time receptionist was given our case number they transferred our phone call to a somebody's line that rang 3 or 4 times and then goes to voice mail.

On April 14, 2014 CARS adjuster finally returned a phone call to the repair facility. After 14 days (can you believe that) I mean we understand we are not the only one's customer CARS has in their list but my car has to be for 14 days on the mechanic lift until they call us ???  I am not the only one customer the repair facility has either and they needed their lift to work with other vehicles as well. So CARS finally got in the phone with somebody and they could not communicate each other (so CARS says) . That is a lie because the mechanic told CARS the issue with the vehicle and the adjuster didn't understand or didn't want to understand so adjuster CLOSED my case. CARS did not give us the authorization number and told the repair facility they will call later. Because of language barrier they CLOSED my case. CARS says the only response they could get from the repair facility is the VIN number of the vehicle. Another lie, so CARS could understand the VIN number of the vehicle but could not understand when the mechanic told CARS the problem with the transmission of the vehicle.

Yes they CLOSED MY CASE just like that. They didn't even care that my vehicle was already at the repair facility for 2 weeks and transmission all opened up because they asked the repair facility to do that. No, CARS didn't even called me to tell me that my case would be CLOSE DOWN for X reason, CARS didn't have the courtesy to call me and tell me my case was CLOSE DOWN and CARS didn't even mention they CLOSED my case with the Better Business Bureau.

So on April 14, 2014 CARS could not understand each other with the repair facility because of language barriers, so CARS closed down my case. Instead of giving us the required authorization number CARS closed my case, simple as it. We, the repair facility and me didn't know about that and the vehicle still on the repairs facility for one more week (vehicle is on the lift for 3 weeks already waiting for CARS to give us the so called authorization number) the repair facility keep asking me what we gonna do? what we gonna do? vehicle is on the lift for 3 weeks already waiting for any answer from CARS and repair facility needed their lift and their room to work with other vehicles. So I have to tell the repair facility to go ahead and finish the job. What was I supposed to do?  keep waiting for CARS to call us? even if CARS would not approve my case, (although on that date I had the hope they would approve it)  the vehicle was already transmission opened up at CARS request.

So on April 30, 2014 (one month since case was opened) I called CARS to find out what is going on with my case and I almost had a heart attack when I heard my case was CLOSED 2 weeks before. I was in shock so the receptionist told me the repair facility has to call in order to open the claim again. I was like: open the claim again?? when did it was closed? why? and the most important question WHY CARS did not called me to tell me the case was closed. I went to the repair facility myself and told them about the problem and they called CARS and re-opened the case. There was a phone call with CARS adjuster same day and it is funny he could understand clearly when repair facility told him transmission was installed on the vehicle. (I guess he was just waiting to hear that and since CARS did not approve the installation of a new transmission then it would be easy to dismiss the case again) .The difference is that me and my brother were there when the phone call was placed and we spoke with the adjuster but adjuster did not tell us vehicle has to be moved to another location to move forward with the claim. That part is another lie from CARS. My brother speaks good English and that was not part of the conversation we had with CARS adjuster on April 30, 2014. Let's pretend they did, Even if they told us that, why CARS would ask me to move the vehicle to another location if transmission was already replaced on my vehicle?

Yes, the contract states we have to obtain an authorization number before any repair are begun but, for how long should we wait for that authorization number? Car was on the mechanic lift for one month waiting for that called authorization number. Repair facility told CARS the problem with the vehicle on April 14, 2014 and CARS instead of giving us the authorization number CARS closed down my case because language barriers and did not contact me to tell me about it. Plus a big , a huge company as CARS does not have any Spanish representative ?? what a company huh? so they can use language barriers as an excuses not to comply with their contracts and let time pass by and pass by and just close cases because of that. It is interesting how come CARS representatives understood the repair facility phone call to open up the case but did not understand the same repair facility phone call explaining CARS the problem with the vehicle. CARS just don't want to honor their contract.

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

 

 

7/1/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 01/03/2014, my son and I purchased a used 2003 Nissan Pathfinder from **** **** in Topeka, KS. In conjection with this vehicle purchase, we bought a 3-yr, unlimited mileage extended service warranty from CARS Protection Plus (Value Plus Coverage). In June 2014, my son, on a trip to St. Louis, MO, experienced performance problems and a service engine check light. He took the Pathfinder to ******* **** *** ****, a NAPA and BBB certified facility. Their diagnosis revealed that the timing chain and sprockets needed to be replaced. This is specifically listed as covered under the Value Plus Protection warranty purchased from CARS. CARS has refused to pay for this repair verbally to both ******* and myself because it is due to their claim of an "unauthorized rebuild" being performed on the Pathfinder. What "unauthorized rebuild"? There was no after market equipment on the Pathfinder, it passed mechanical inspection and ran petfectly well. This "unauthorized rebuild" was not identified by **** **** or CARS Protection Plus at the time of purchase as being present or is a limitation of this Pathfinder. Who in the world would buy an extended warranty if it is no good? Who would sell it, besides CARS apparently? The extended warranty was purchased on the vehicle, as is, at the time of its purchase by us from CARS. Period. **** **** and I believe this is a case of CARS Protection Plus simply refusing to pay for a repair whose cost is much greater than the cost of the extended warranty purchase price.

Desired Settlement: Simply honor your obligation to pay ******* **** *** **** to replace the timing chain and gears (approximately $3300) and accept your responsibility for repairs for the duration of the purchased warranty.

Business Response:

I received your recent correspondence and respond as follows: On January 2, 2014 the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). On January 9, 2014 the service contract application was accepted with payment and approved by CARS (the attached “Service Contract”).

FIRST CLAIM:   On January 16, 2014, at 1:32 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair

facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the thermostat. 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 as follows: We could supply a thermostat for $36.25. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 1.2 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor 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 $8.25 and we could supply the thermostat as stated above or pay $8.25 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. However, we would not be able to assist with labor since it would be less than the deductible. On January 17, 2014 we were advised by the repair facility that the customer paid for the claim out of pocket. The claim was then closed.

SECOND CLAIM: On May 15, 2014 at 2:54 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the catalytic converter. We advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, the catalytic converter is a non-covered component; therefore, we would not be able to assist with the claim.

THIRD CLAIM: On June 10, 2014, at 1:32 p.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing issues with the timing chain and catalytic converter. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We advised the repair facility that they needed to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down his vehicle to the point of failure so that we could determine the cause of failure and the extent of damage. We further advised that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, he was responsible for all tear down and diagnostic costs. We explained that the catalytic converter is a non-covered components under the customer’s service contract. We then advised the repair facility to get back to us with their findings.

During the processing of the claim the repair facility advised CARS in two (2) recorded telephone calls on June 13, 2014 and in writing (attached) that the failures to the customer’s vehicle were caused by excessive silicone sealant spray during a previous improper repair. The repair facility found RTV (silicone spray) over the timing covers in what appeared to be an attempt to stop an oil leak. The silicone sealant was also sprayed onto the cam phasers. As a result, the silicone sealant then got into the oil channels on the cam phasers causing issues with the timing system. The primary chain was stretched and the camshaft chains were damaged due to the constant adjusting and re-adjusting of the cam phasers.

On June 16, 2014 at 10:04 a.m., we advised the repair facility that CARS was unable to assist with the timing chain claim due to the failures being the result of a previous improper repair.

Please be advised that 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 service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1 (h): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Damage resulting from any previous improper repair” is not covered. The repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that a previous improper repair was the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle.

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.

As you can see from the above information, CARS was correct when we denied assistance with the June 10, 2014 timing chain claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle due to the failures being the result of a previous improper repair. Therefore, based on the repair facility’s findings that an improper repair caused the failures to the customer’s vehicle, we stand behind our original decision and are unable to offer any assistance with the repair.

The customer states in his consumer complaint that CARS refused to pay for the repairs to his vehicle because of an “unauthorized rebuild”. As you can see from the above paragraphs that is not the case; we were unable to assist with the repair due to an improper previous repair pursuant to the terms and conditions of his service contract.

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statements regarding our refusal to pay the June 10, 2014 timing chain claim made on behalf of his vehicle. Please be advised that CARS processes hundreds of claims each day and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer’s mechanical claims. Please be further advised that CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 165 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved" by the BBB, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in thirty-one (31) states and at any given time our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force.

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 take strong exception to CARS' assertion that they are refusing to pay their portion of this service because of an "unauthorized service" being performed.  An extended warranty is, in essence, an insurance policy agreement entered into at the the a vehicle is purchased.  The insurance provider accepts the calculated risk of providing the insurance.  They had every opportunity, should they have decided to do so, to open up and inspect the engine and the overall vehicle before setting a cost for coverage, taking payment and accepting the contract (as they have acknowledged doing).


Had this "unauthorized repair" occurred after the contract had been entered into, then they clearly have every right to deny providing any compensation for the service being performed.  But this is not the case here.  And is, as I understood, the intent of the clause in the original agreement since it governs the responsibilities of each party of the contract going forward.

Regards,

**** *****

 

 

Business Response:

Attached please find CARS' response to the customer's additional concerns at Complaint #********.  Thank you.

 

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 have reviewed CARS response to my most recent correspondence and I take great offense to their assertion that I do not understand the terms and conditions of an extended service contract purchased at the same time as a purchase of a used vehicle.  Prior to being forced to leave my employment due to back problems, I worked for ****** **** ***** in northeast Kansas as a Commercial Sales Manager.  This group consists of nine new car dealerships along with two used vehicle locations.  Whenever we sold an extended warranty through 3rd party providers, it took effect at the time of delivery of the vehicle.  The warranty was always priced, just like an insurance policy, with the provider assuming the calculated risk that they would not lose money over the life of the contract.  We could NEVER use the excuse to refuse payment for a repair of the vehicle due to an unforeseen condition at the time of purchase.  Claiming the ability to "opt out" of the agreement anytime a repair became too costly is akin to an automobile insurance provider declining to repair a wrecked vehicle because they couldn't see that the insured was prone to having an accident.  They, just like CARS, had every opporunity to decline providing coverage prior to a contract being accepted.

As for receiving a refund, that is true that the dealer did provide us a refund for the cost of the coverage.  However they did this before CARS agreed to provide them any monetary recovery.

As with any insurance policy, this simply amounts to refunding the costs incurred with the purchase of a policy whenever faced with the consequence of paying out more than they cared to.

While we no longer have a warranty, it does not mitigate the facts of CARS unethical performance of their obligations (albeit legal in their eyes).  And future purchasers of any agreement with them should be forewarned.

Regards,

**** *****

 

 

6/26/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I submitted a request to have my car fixed. the transmission does not work. They have not honored the contract to fix it, its been in the shop for 3 weeks now with no resolution

Desired Settlement: I would like a new transmission for this car

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 3, 2014, 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 31, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on April 4, 2014 (See attached Service Contract).

FIRST CLAIM: On May 13, 2014 at 1:43 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission problems. We then reviewed our claim procedures and advised the repair facility that the customer’s permission was needed to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the customer was responsible for all diagnostic/teardown costs. Later that day, the repair facility advised CARS that it did not do repairs on the type of transmission in the customer’s vehicle. We then advised the repair facility that the customer’s vehicle would have to be moved to a repair facility that would perform internal transmission repairs on the vehicle.

SECOND CLAIM: On May 20, 2014 at 2:29 p.m., we received a telephone call from a new repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission problems. We then reviewed our claim procedures and advised the repair facility that the customer's permission was needed to tear down the vehicle to the point of component failure. We further advised that the customer was responsible for all diagnostic/teardown costs.

On May 23, 2014 at 9:33 a.m., the repair facility advised that the cause of failure was the valve body. We then advised the repair facility to fax an estimate. After receiving the repair facilities estimate, CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows:                                                                   We could supply a

transmission for $1,215.00, and a friction modifier for $12.00, we could pay $54.00 towards fluids. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 6.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $360.00. 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 $1,541.00 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $314.00 towards labor and fluid or pay $1,541.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

Later that same day, the repair facility advised us that the customer would like to have the

transmission shipped to the repair facility. The repair facility then advised us that the transmission needed to have a specific number stamped in the case to work properly with the valve body. Our claims adjuster then advised the repair facility that CARS would have to look into this further since we did not have this information when we gave the repair facility the options for CARS to assist with the claim.

During the processing of the claim, due to the conflicting information regarding the cause of failure and estimate for repairs, CARS determined that an independent inspection of the vehicle was necessary to verify the exact cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle. On June 3, 2014 the independent inspector advised the repair facility of the inspection and explained the requirement to have the transmission removed and disassembled in order verify the cause of failure. The repair facility advised that the transmission was ready for inspection. However, when the independent inspector arrived at the repair facility, he was told it would take an hour to disassemble and set up the valve body to demonstrate a failure. The repair facility also stated that the repair facility did not have time to set up the test and the independent inspector should come back another day. The repair facility further advised the independent inspector that they were frustrated that CARS was sending a used unit. No failed components were shown to the independent inspector.

On June 3, 2014 at 1:40 p.m., we advised the repair facility that we never stated that we were sending a used transmission. We further advised that prior to CARS providing the customer’s options for the claim allowance, the repair facility did not provided us with complete information regarding the need for the transmission and valve body to have corresponding codes. We explained to the repair facility that pursuant to the customer’s service contract, re-inspection of the customer’s vehicle was needed and the customer was responsible for the cost. The repair facility stated they would not pay for it.

Later that same day our claims adjustor and a claims manager spoke to the customer and updated her on the status of the claim. We went over the need for an independent inspection due to conflicting information, parts listed on the estimates as needed for repair and the independent inspector not being able to verify any failures to the customer’s vehicle due to the transmission not being torn down by the repair facility and the repair facility’s lack of cooperation with the independent inspector. We also explained that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, the customer is responsible for the cost of a second independent inspection.

On June 4, 2014 after a three way call with CARS, the repair facility and the customer, the customer agreed to pay for a second independent inspection to her vehicle. The independent inspection occurred on June 5, 2014. The independent inspector observed the technician performing a static air test of the valve body and verified the valves for the low/forward clutches were sticking and showed heat. The rest of the clutches showed normal wear. Clutch and metal debris were observed in the pan and torque converter.

On June 6, 2014 at 10:05 a.m., after verifying the part number for the main control assembly with the repair facility, CARS went over the amount we could now authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply a transmission for $1,215.00 and a valve body for $2,492.24. We could pay $78.80 towards fluids. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 7.0 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $60.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $420.00. 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 $4,106.04 and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $398.80 towards labor and fluid or pay $4,106.04 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We advised the repair facility to get back to us with the customer’s decision. At this time we are waiting for the customer’s decision.

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 clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): 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 also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer has the
choice to have our supplied transmission shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition.
The valve body is a new part.

Please be advised that it is clearly stated at Paragraph 3(c): 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-inspection costs.” During the first independent inspection of you vehicle the independent inspector was not able verify any failures to the customer’s vehicle because the repair facility did not properly tear down the transmission. In addition, even though the repair facility was aware that the independent inspection was to occur on June 3, 2014, the repair facility asked the independent inspector to come back another day. Therefore, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, the customer was responsible for the cost of the second inspection.

We would like to point out here that the repair is responsible for the length of time it has taken to process the claim. The repair facility did not provide CARS with sufficient information prior to CARS giving the initial options for assistance with the customer’s claim. In addition, we received conflicting information, inconsistencies in the parts needed for repairs listed on estimates, and the independent inspector not being able to verify any failures to the vehicle due to the transmission not being torn down by the repair facility and also the repair facility’s lack of cooperation with the independent inspector. CARS has responded in a timely manner to the information we have received from the repair facility; however, as you can see the repair facility has not been forthcoming with information for the processing of the customer’s claim.

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.

At this time, CARS is waiting to hear back from the repair facility on the customer’s decision to take the cash allowance or have CARS ship the parts to the repair facility and assist with labor costs as stated above. As soon as we hear back from the repair facility we will be able to move forward with the May 20, 2014 claim made of 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.

6/17/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have a service contract for the motor of the car I bought. I told them about the clicking noise the engine was making and they said to take it to the shop of my choice then contact them to let them know what the problem is. I took the car to the dealership and they contacted the warranty group.The Mitsubishi dealer said that there was a piece of metal in the motor and they didn't know where it came from, and they felt that this was what caused the motor to fail. They could not determine if the piston failed and destroyed the spark plug or if the spark plug failed and destroyed the piston. The porcelain part of the plug was not damaged, only the tip. All the other plugs in the car where fine but they chose this option to keep from paying for the motor.I also found out the this was not the only time that the dealer that I bought the car from has had this problem with the warranty people.

Desired Settlement: I want to be reimbursed for the cost of the new motor and repairs that the warranty should have paid for.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 27, 2014, 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 30, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 2, 2014 (See attached Service Contract). The customer’s service contract expired on May 3, 2014.

On March 18, 2014 at 9:58 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the engine. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, in a recorded telephone call, the repair facility advised us that a spark plug electrode had broken off and damaged the top of the piston. The repair facility further advised that the compression loss in the cylinder was caused by the electrode breaking off the spark plug. On March 18, 2014 at 11:41 a.m., we advised the repair facility that CARS would not be able to assist with the engine claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. Here, a non­covered component (spark plug) caused damage to a covered component (engine).

On March 18, 2014 at 9:58 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the repair facility had torn down the vehicle and found foreign metal fragments on top of the piston. CARS advised that to move forward with the claim the foreign metal must be identified.

During the processing of the new information in regard to the engine claim, CARS received conflicting information from the repair facility as to the identification of the foreign metal on the piston. In a recorded telephone call on March 27, 2014, the repair facility informed us that they were not able to identify the foreign metal.

On March 27, 2014 at 5:07 p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we would not be able to assist with the March 18, 2014 engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle due to the failure being caused by the ingestion of a foreign piece of metal into the engine and causing the failure to the engine.

On March 28, 2014 at 9:24 a.m., we advised the customer’s father that we were unable to assist with the engine claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. We further advised that a mechanical cause of failure was not shown by the repair facility.


Please be advised that 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 clearly 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 the customer to repair his vehicle found that the failure to the engine (covered component) was caused by the failure of an unidentified foreign object on the piston (non-covered component).

In addition, it is clearly stated in your 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 repair facility was not able to identify any component listed as covered components under the service contract.

Furthermore, 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 service contract holder 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.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the service contact. Therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the March 18, 2014 engine claim for all the reasons stated above. Please be advised that the customer’s service contract expired on May 3, 2014 and therefore, the customer no longer has 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.

6/12/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: When my vehicle needed replacement parts to the engine, C.A.R.S. Protection Plus offered to replace these parts with used pieces. Although an authorized used parts clause is included in the warranty, no mechanic (that I know) will replace such critical engine parts with used pieces. Additionally, C.A.R.S. Protection Plus attempted to state that the most expensive part was not covered, when it was clearly listed in the contract as a covered part. The customer service director showed no sympathy, was unable to fully explain how they authorized a used piece, and did not offer any type of support (outside of repeating the terms of the contract). The total cost to repair my vehicle was just shy of $600. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus offered a total of $163.00 for this repair, using used parts. This is a complete and utter rip off in my opinion, and they are saved by the "authorized used parts" clause in the contract. In my experience, they are ALWAYS going to find used parts to repair the car rather than providing new parts for the repair. And since no professional mechanic will likely replace engine pieces with used parts (or other critical parts of a vehicle), C.A.R.S. Protection Plus ends up not paying for much of anything. It may be in the contract, but "Authorized Used Parts" is misleading since they cannot or do not explain how this is determined and since they will just find used parts to repair a vehicle. I think that it is unethical, and a complete rip off to customers.

Desired Settlement: I do not believe that I will be able to receive a comparable refund for what I had to pay for since C.A.R.S. Protection Plus is protected by their very misleading authorized used parts clause within the contract. But I do think it is necessary to report this company's unethical operations and unprofessional customer service.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 9, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On December 20, 2013, 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 2, 2014 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On May 21, 2014 at 1:04 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer was experiencing issues with the intake gasket and coil pack. 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 intake manifold gasket for $90.00, the intake set for $7.00, and ignition coils for $24.00. 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 was $42.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $163.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the parts as stated above; however, no labor was allotted due to the deductible or we would pay $63.00 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 22, 2014 at 1:04 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer would take the cash allowance. CARS gave an authorization number to the repair facility to begin work on the customer’s vehicle. On May 27, 2014, after receiving the final invoice for the repairs, CARS paid the repair facility $63.00 via credit card pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On June 9, 2014 at 8:55 a.m., our customer service department received an email from the customer requesting information on the May 21, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. On June 9, 2014 at 8:55 a.m., the customer service manager left a message for the customer with CARS’ phone number, the customer service manager’s extension, and CARS’ hours for the customer to reach CARS with his concerns. Later that day the customer telephoned CARS and our customer service manager reviewed the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract with him. The options for CARS’ assistance with the May 21, 2014 claim were also reviewed.

 

By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): 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 also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. It was the customer’s choice to take the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. In this case, the customer chose to take the money allowance for the repair. It is clearly stated in the service contract that the coverage purchased was for a “used” part. 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.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any further assistance with the May 21, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle. We believe that we have fulfilled all our obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

Please be advised that the customer’s vehicle has service coverage through January 2, 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 the customer’s service contract, CARS will pay accordingly.

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statements about our company being unethical and a rip off to customers. Please be advised that CARS processes hundreds of claims each day and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer’s mechanical claims. CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 165 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved” by the BBB, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition, our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in thirty-one (31) states and at any given time our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force.

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 find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 

 

6/2/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have a bumper to bumper 2year unlimited warranty through SCars Protection Plus. I've only had the vehicle for 7mos. now and I brought the truck to the dealership for a service issue. The dealership called me back and told me that I need a new motor, do you have a warranty and I told them yes and it covers all lubricated parts. Should the motor covered, they told me yes. My service person at the dealership has been getting the runaround for the pass 3 days by the underwriters. This is unacceptable and time consuming and my feeling is this... I believe that this so-called protection plan company is trying to get out of paying their obligation of the promised contract agreement. Something needs to be do with Cars Protection Plus, everyday they don't award the repair, everyday I'm closer to losing everything. Please do something!@

Desired Settlement: Put a NEW motor in my truck by the 22nd of May, 2014 or legal action will begin!!

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 13, 2014, 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 September 14, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on September 30, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

On May 8, 2014 at 9:06 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically, the evaporation purge valve, sway bar link, tensioner pulley, CV axle boots, and transmission cooler lines. We then went over our claim procedures. Later that same day, we advised the repair facility that we were not able to assist with the repair of the customer’s service contract pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The failed parts were not listed on the service contract as covered components.

On May 9, 2014 at 1:57 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically, the engine. We then went over our claim procedures.

During the processing of the claim, it took the repair facility five (5) days to get back with us and as of said date the repair facility still has not given CARS a cause of failure for the customer’s vehicle so that we may determine if the failed part is covered pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

We would also like to point out here that the customer has been difficult to work with during the processing of the engine claim made on behalf of his vehicle. The customer has used profane language with CARS’ staff and has threatened to record phone conversations. I have informed the customer in writing that he does not have permission to record any telephone calls with CARS’ staff. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, permission must be given to record a telephone conversation.

On May 13, 2014 I explained to the customer that in order to move forward with the claim, his permission must be given to tear down the vehicle to the point of failure. Once the repair facility has determined the cause of failure, the repair facility must call CARS with their findings so that we may determine if the repair is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. As of said date, we still have not heard back from the repair facility with a cause of failure.

Please be advised that 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 clearly 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.” The evaporation purge valve, sway bar link, tensioner pulley, CV axle boots, and transmission cooler lines that were reported to us as failed during the processing of the May 8, 2014 claim are not listed as covered components under the customer’s service contract.

Please be further advised, it clearly 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.” 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.

In addition, under the customer’s Service Contract, we are 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 is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverage. Various provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

At this time, we are waiting to hear back from the repair facility on the specific cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle so that we may move forward with 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.

Very truly yours


 

***** ** ****** General Counsel

6/2/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought a minivan in Feb. I was offered Cars warranty as protection in the event any of my powertrain components failed. I paid $200 in confidence that CARS would stand behind their promise. April 2nd my check engine light came on. My mechanic stated the oil had mixed with coolant and advised against driving it. We had the vehicle towed costing a total of $140. The shop called April 4th making a claim on the vehicle that the head gasket blew causing oil and coolant to mix. I was told its a very common problem with these motors and that is why they no longer make them. CARS stated this diagnosis was insufficient and they needed the cause of failure and extent of damage. I was advised to give shop permission to tear down engine to diagnose further and that I was responsible for charges. Costing an additional $440. The shop then found head gasket lifted on cylinder 4 causing coolant to seep into head, mixing with oil, scorned crank and ruined bottom end of motor. This still was not enough info. CARS wanted to know why it split and wanted warpage measurement. After supplying measurement I was told again it was not enough info. They seemingly requested a magical answer as to why the gasket split. At this point we were beyond frustrated as its been drawn on for over a month. Some on our part but mostly due to phone calls not being returned and from getting run around. My husband then spoke to **** supervisor **** who apologized for problems and agreed to pay the claim. The shop was even told they were going to pay out. Upon learning I already paid shop $1800 and work had already been done CARS denied the claim. They stated this was because there was no pre authorization for repairs. Im not sure what they expected us to do. We need a vehicle for work. Also we had already acquired $740 in rental car charges. Its unfathomable how they could agree to pay claim and literally 5 minutes later call back and say they no longer wish to help us out. The entire claims process was a joke. They give you the run around and say whatever they can to not have to pay out for their customers.

Desired Settlement: I believe CARS should be responsible for paying this claim. As stated above they had already accepted liability for the claim. If I didn't do the work on the van I would've lost my job causing the van to get repossessed due to non payment and this wouldn't be an issue. I request the original settlement offered by CARS in the amount of $964 in addition to the mere $25 for rental reimbursement and the $50 for towing reimbursement adding to a total of $1039.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 9, 2014, 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 4, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (6 Months/7,500 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 10, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

Please be advised that on April 3, 2014 the customer advised CARS in two (2) separate telephone calls that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues. A customer service representative reviewed the claim procedures and the service contract coverage in detail with the customer during both of those telephone calls.

On April 7, 2014 at 11:17 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine problems. During that same telephone call we went over in detail CARS’ claim procedures. We also advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to tear down her vehicle to the point of failure and call us back with the repair facility’s findings prior to any work being performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On April 11, 2014 at 11:06 a.m., four (4) days later, the repair facility advised us that they could not tie up their repair bay waiting to have the repair authorized and advised that the vehicle would have to be moved. We explained that if the customer’s vehicle was moved pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, a new claim would need to be opened. Later that same day, we explained to the customer that in order to move forward with the claim, permission must be given to tear down the vehicle to the point of failure. The customer advised that they would call the repair facility.

On April 21, 2014, ten (10) days later, the repair facility faxed us an incomplete estimate for the repair of the vehicle. The estimate did not give CARS the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle.

Again, on April 22, 2014 at 11:16 a.m., the repair facility advised that the #1 main bearing had failed and was overheated. In addition, the oil was intermixed with coolant. We advised again that we needed the cause of failure and the extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle.

On April 23, 2014 at 4:23 p.m., we again explained to the customer and the tech at the repair facility that in order to move forward with the claim, the repair facility must provide us with a cause of failure and extent of damage. The tech advised that he would send the head gaskets to a machine shop to determine warpage. He further advised that he could not tell us where the head gasket had failed because the vehicle was not torn down far enough to provide that information.

Over a week later, on both May 1, 2014, and on May 8, 2014, the customer telephoned CARS for an update on the repair of the vehicle. During both telephone calls, we advised that we were still waiting for the findings from the repair facility. We also requested that they have the repair facility contact us.

On May 8, 2014 at 11:31 a.m., we telephoned the repair facility advising that we still needed the cause of failure and extent of damage and also requested that the technician call us with the findings in order to move forward with the claim. The repair facility advised that they did not care and to stop bothering them. The repair facility then ended the call.

On May 8, 2014 at 1:13 p.m., after receiving a complete estimate and assuming that the claim procedures were being properly followed, our claims adjuster went over the amount we could have authorized for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply an engine for $650.00. Mitchell’s labor guide stated the total repair should take 8.3 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays $50.00 per hour for labor. Therefore, total labor was $415.00. 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 $965.00 and we could supply the engine as stated above and pay $315.00 towards labor or pay $965.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that they would call us back with the customer’s decision.

On May 8, 2014 at 1:15 p.m., a claims manager advised the customer’s husband that now that we received a complete estimate with the cause of failure we could move forward with the engine repair/replacement. Later that same day, both the customer’s husband and the repair facility advised CARS in two (2) separate recorded telephone calls that the repairs had already been completed when we received the incomplete estimate on April 21, 2014.

On May 8, 2014 at 4:56 p.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, we would not be able to assist with the engine claim because the repairs were completed without prior authorization from CARS. On that same day, at 5:04 p.m., a claims manager also explained to the customer's husband why we could not assist with the engine claim.

Please be advised that 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 customer’s service contract clearly 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 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 clearly 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 on April 21, 2013. Thereafter, both the repair facility and the customer gave erroneous information to make CARS believe that the repairs were not yet performed.

In addition, the customer states in her consumer complaint that we were looking for a magical answer for the cause of failure. Our service contracts clearly state in bold print and the same size print as
all of the other 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.” 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 teardown and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine the cause of failure. Furthermore, CARS explained to the repair facility and the customer and the customer’s husband on several occasions what we required to move forward with claim.

Additionally, the service contract clearly 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 is not responsible for any inconvenience or costs for down time of the customer’s vehicle. Again, the repair facility did not give us information in a timely manner to move forward with claim and when they did provide us with the required information, the repairs were already performed. As stated above, we thoroughly explained our claim procedures to the repair facility on April 7, 2014 and in several telephone calls to the customer during the processing of the claim; however, we did not receive a complete estimate until one (1) month later. The repair facility, not CARS is responsible for the delay in the processing of the April 7, 2014 engine claim.

The claim procedures outlined on the customer’s service contract and identification card are the same claim procedures that a|l 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 above, both the repair facility and the customer were fully aware that the repairs were performed on April 21, 2014, which was clearly prior to May 8, 2014 when CARS finally received the required information on the cause of failure to move forward with the claim authorization.

Accordingly, 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.

However, if the customer experiences mechanical failures prior to the expiration of her service contract on August 10, 2014 or when her vehicle reaches 83,869 miles, whichever is reached first. The customer and any repair facility chosen by her must follow the claims procedures outlined above, and also contained on the service contract and on 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.

6/2/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a vehicle on March 6th 2014. A C.A.R.S warranty policy was also purchased with the vehicle. On April 5th, the vehicle started shifting hard, and the engine light came on. I took the vehicle (Chevy uplander)to advanced auto to have it diagnosed. It was coded as torque converter on the transmission. On Monday May 5th this warranty company called me while I was at work, to ask me some questions about the vehicle so it could be repaired. During the conversation, ***, started tossing dates at me, such as purchase date and how long after I got it did it start doing it. I was not sure of the dates. First date he threw at me about the date it started acting up was March 23rd, and me being unsure of the exact date and not having a calendar to look at, stated "Probably somewhere around there." So he issued my date as March 23rd. After hanging up with him, it had dawned on me that the correct date was actually the date of my daughters birthday party because I was on my way to get her cake when it started doing this. This date was April 5th, 2014. I immediately (within 30 minutes)called him back to give him this date and he informed me that my claim had already been denied. Upon asking why, he informed me that I stated that the vehicle began acting up on April 23rd, and that my warranty was not accepted into their computers until April 24th. I never one time gave a date during my call, as like I stated I was unsure. I feel I was coached by *** on what date to say so that they would not have to cover the issue. Ironically the date he entered is the day before the warranty went into effect. This is very bad business, and very unethical way to handle things. If there was a date to be given he should have allowed me to give the date not offer one. I will be seeking an attorney for this matter.

Desired Settlement: I want the transmission issue fixed as that is what the warranty is purchased for. This is terrible that they would treat their customers this way.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 7, 2014, 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 6, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (3 Months/4,500 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on March 24, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On May 1, 2014 at 2:54 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the torque converter and switch. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, on May 5, 2014, the customer clearly and concisely advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that about two (2) weeks after purchase of the vehicle the transmission on the vehicle began to shift hard and it felt as if someone was slamming into the back of the vehicle. During that recorded call, our claims adjuster only stated the date of March 20, 2014, which was two weeks after the purchase date, as a point of reference. The customer agreed with that date of her own accord without any pressure from CARS.

On May 5, 2014 at 10:35 a.m., 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 her vehicle. Later, that same day, we went over the reasons we were not able to assist with the May 1, 2014 claim made on behalf of her vehicle with the customer.

Based on the clear and concise information provided by the customer, the failures were present on March 20. 2014, which was clearly prior to CARS receiving with payment and approving the customer’s service contract on March 24, 2014. Therefore, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the above-referenced vehicle pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on her service contract application, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. 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 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.”

As stated previously during the May 5, 2014 telephone call, the customer stated she began to experience issues with her vehicle two (2) weeks after the purchase date and she agreed of her own accord that she began to experience issues with her vehicle on March 20, 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. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the May 1, 2014 claim because by her own words, the torque converter and switch problems were present prior to CARS’ acceptance with payment of the customer’s service contract.

Therefore, for the reason stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and are not able to assist with the May 1, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

However, the customer has service contract coverage on her vehicle through June 24, 2014, or when the vehicle reaches 163,908 miles, whichever occurs first. Should the customer 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 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.

Very truly yours


5/23/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought a 1999 Dodge Durango from ******** **** in Anderson, IN earlier this year and bought a vehicle warranty from CARS Protection Plus. I started having problems with it and took it to the specified repair shop ******** ** ****** in Anderson, In on about April 18th. After a month of waiting for CARS Protection Plus to approve the repairs I finally hear from the repair shop on 5/12/14 saying that CARS Protection Plus is refusing to pay for the repairs, canceling the policy, and refusing to refund the money I paid them because the vehicle has oversized tires on it. These tires were on the vehicle when I bought it and were on it when the dealership bought it. When I called CARS Protection Plus they said they didn't sell the policy, ******** **** did and all they did was ACCEPT it which in turn they verbally admitted they are to be held liable to the contract. They refuse to work with me at all. They accepted the warranty with the vehicle as it was. I have made no changes at all to it so it is exactly as it was when they accepted the warranty. They claim its in the contract that you cant put oversized tires on it but I didn't. That's how the vehicle was when I got it. Their contract also states the modification has to take place AFTER purchase to void the warranty.

Desired Settlement: I would like to have them be held responsible for these repairs per the contract and if they so choose to cancel the contract after the repairs are paid for, the initial cost of the warranty refunded prorated to current month as well as my expenses and time in obtaining transportation while my vehicle has been in the shop paid to me.

Business Response:

Upon receipt of your letter dated May 13, 2014 enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint, CARS’ management reviewed the customer’s concerns. At this time we are willing to refund the customer in the amount of $369.00, which is the full amount that CARS received from the selling dealer for the service contract. However, due to the circumstances surrounding this matter, we will require a General Release to be signed by the customer prior to us sending a refund to him.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the customer’s witnessed and notarized signature. Upon our receipt of the enclosed fully executed and notarized General Release, CARS will send the refund check directly to the customer.

We would like to point out here that the customer’s consumer complaint has some erroneous information. 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):                                                                           “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.” As you can see, nowhere in the customer’s contract does it state that the modifications must take place AFTER the purchase of the vehicle to void the service contract. The service contract clearly states: “regardless of when modifications or alterations were performed.”

Here, we believed that the customer’s vehicle met our eligibility requirements when the vehicle was approved by CARS on January 31, 2014. It was not until the processing of the April 23, 2014 claim that CARS became aware of the alterations/modifications of the to the customer’s vehicle. The alterations/modifications 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.

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. Once notified of a modified/altered vehicle, CARS has the right to cancel the service 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.

Very truly yours,


 

***** ** ****** 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.

I will agree to them paying 50% of the repair bill and end it at that. They delayed even looking at the vehicle for a good month and I have been with0ut a vehicle for 2 months now. They should be held responsible for the agreement they agreed to which would mean they pay 100% of the repair bill. But I will accept a 50% payment of the bill only because of the time I have been without a vehicle.

Regards,

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

 

 

5/16/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: purchased a used car and thinking also buy the third party extended warranty would be a good idea, about one month after car purchasing and there was a 'checking engine' light on, took car to dealer and found the issue, dealer and i both called the Cars Protection Plus for per-authorization for repair but were denied for coverage.here is the language in the contract: ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM Lubricated parts contained within the engine block; cylinder heads; intake manifold; pistons;......intake/exhaust valves and valve springs;......the error code reads: vans intake fault code: 2A87, P code 0015 P0012clear to me, not car expert, this is a intake/exhaust valve issue. I'd like to fill this complain and make all aware this kind of 'service'.---***** ****

Desired Settlement: warranty contract refund for repair job, this is why i bought the 'warranty'. Thanks.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 30, 2014, 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 20, 2014. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on March 21, 2014. (See attached Service Contract).

On April 29, 2014 at 2:14 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the vanos solenoid. We advised the repair facility that the vanos solenoid was not covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The vanos solenoid is external to the vanos valve and not an internally lubricated part; therefore, no coverage was available.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Ultimate Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. It is clearly stated in the customer’s 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 vanos solenoid is not listed as a covered component under the customer’s service contract.

Furthermore, 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 is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Please be advised that CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facility to determine if a part is covered under our service contracts. The repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that the “vanos solenoid” failed on the vehicle which is not listed as a covered component under the customer’s service contract as stated above.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the April 29, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. in the consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund for the service contract. Please be 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 directed by Illinois state statute to refund a pro-rated amount less a service fee and claims paid. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the both of the names listed on the service contract witnessed and notarized signatures, if the customer is agreeable to a refund of $1,769.86 which represents a prorated amount of $1,819.86 less a service fee of $50.00 for a total refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer. Upon our receipt of the enclosed General Release with the customers’ original witnessed and notarized signatures, we will send the prorated amount CARS received from the selling dealer, to the selling dealer who would then issue a check to the customer.

We would further like to point out here that CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers; therefore, CARS only receives a set price for each service contract sold and any remaining refund of the customer’s service contract owed to the customer is to be paid by ****** Auto Sales. CARS received $1,899.00 from the selling dealer for the purchase of an Ultimate Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles) for the customer’s vehicle. Accordingly, since the selling dealer paid us for the customer’s service contract we will send the refund to the selling dealer. This provides an opportunity to the dealer to refund the customer their portion of the profit of the monies due the customer.

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.

5/7/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a C.A.R.S. extended warranty plan which covered the period of 9/21/2007 until 3/27/2013 at which time they would not renew due to the age/mileage of the vehicle.I submitted a claim for the repair of my AC system in March of 2013.C.A.R.S. supplied the compressor and other repair parts to my local mechanic.The mechanic installed the new parts and completed the job the same day that my C.A.R.S. warranty expired, 3/27/2013.C.A.R.S. paid the mechanic the contractually agreed portion.The vehicle was barely used the summer of 2013 (It has been driven about 2800 miles in the last 14 months), and when it was used that summer, the AC did not work.The mechanic assumed that there was a leak somewhere and told me that I should bring it in to get a dye test. He stated that it was unlikely to be the compressor, and if it was my research showed a manufacturer warranty on that part for 24 mos. so I was not worried.This year, 2014,(in March before the heat of the summer) I brought the vehicle in for a dye test.The mechanic performed the test and said that the compressor is leaking.I called * *******, (the compressor manufacturer) to put in a claim but they told me that the claim needs to go through the distributor that sold it.I called C.A.R.S. to find out where they purchased the compressor that I might submit a warranty claim on the compressor.C.A.R.S. told me that they would not disclose the vendor from which they purchased the compressor.Upon further inquiry ***** at C.A.R.S. told me that the part warranty expired on the very same day that it was installed and that they would be of "no further assistance"My request is that I be given the ability to make a warranty claim against the parts manufacturer. It is not equitable that the manufacturer warranty should be deemed void by C.A.R.S.If C.A.R.S. reserves the right to make parts claims against the manufacturers of parts that they supply there is no reason that they should not do this on my behalf. It would cost C.A.R.S. nothing

Desired Settlement: My request is that I be given the ability to make a warranty claim against the parts manufacturer. It is not equitable that the manufacturer warranty should be deemed void by C.A.R.S.If C.A.R.S. reserves the right to make parts claims against the manufacturers of parts that they supply there is no reason that they should not do this on my behalf. It would cost C.A.R.S. nothingIf C.A.R.S. has another suggestion that they believe would be equitable in the sight of just people I am open to it

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated May 2, 2014, 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 September 20, 2007. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (6 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on September 27, 2007. (See attached Service Contract). On February 21, 2008, the customer renewed his service contract via fax using a credit card for an additional term of (24 months/Unlimited Miles). The customer had service contract coverage through March 27, 2010. On March 19, 2010, the customer again renewed his service contract via phone using a credit card for an additional term of (36 months/Unlimited Miles). The customer had service contract coverage through March 27, 2013.

Since the inception of the customer’s service contract our records reveal six (6) claims have been opened, all which were authorized by CARS. Of those six (6) claims, three (3) claims were previous to 2009 and all three (3) claims were paid in the total amount of $477.54 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customers’ service contract. The most recent three (3) claims are outlined as follows:

FIRST CLAIM: On July 20, 2009 we received a telephone call from *** at ********* **** **** *** advising that the customer was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the fuel pump. After the allowance for the claim was explained to the repair facility, the customer chose to have our supplied part sent to the repair facility. After receiving the final repair invoice, CARS paid the amount of $86.00 on July 28, 2009 to the customer. Thereafter, CARS paid the parts supplier on August 11, 2009, the amount of $290.10 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

SECOND CLAIM: On February 13, 2012 we received a telephone call from ****** at ******* **** advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the fuel pump. During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the fuel pump for $326.88. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 3.3 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $198.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $424.00 once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the fuel pump and pay $98.00 towards labor or pay $424.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that the customer chose to have CARS ship the part. We then gave an authorization number to the repair facility and reviewed the requirements for payment by CARS. Please be advised that the final invoice for the cost of labor was never received by CARS; therefore, no payment was sent to the repair facility for labor. However, on March 5, 2012 CARS paid our parts supplier the amount of $326.88. The claim was closed after 180 days pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

THIRD CLAIM:   On March 12,   2013 we received a telephone call from ****** at ******* **** advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the a/c compressor. During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the compressor for $294.80 and the drier for $16.57. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 2.2 hours to complete and the customer's service contract paid up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $132.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $343.37 once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the a/c compressor and drier and pay $32.00 towards labor or pay $343.37 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. The repair facility advised us that the customer wanted CARS to ship our supplied a/c compressor and drier. We then gave an authorization number to the repair facility and reviewed the requirements for payment by CARS. Please be advised that the final invoice for the cost of labor was never received by CARS; therefore, no payment was sent to the repair facility. However, on April 4, 2013, CARS paid our parts supplied the amount of $346.37. The claim was closed after 180 days pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on the service contract, the customer acknowledged that he read and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is clearly stated in the service contract under terms and conditions: ‘PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY: The Limited Warranty is between the vehicle owner as stated above and CARS. The Limited Warranty begins the day this application is received with payment and approved by C.A.R.S., and will last for the time period or mileage set forth above, whichever occurs first, so long as you own the vehicle. The customer’s service contract expired on March 27, 2013; therefore, the supplied a/c compressor and drier no longer have any coverage the under the CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty.

Please be further advised that it is clearly stated under the terms and conditions: “WARRANTY 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 used the cost of the parts to be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer had the choice to have our supplied a/c compressor and drier shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. In this case, the customer chose to have CARS ship the a/c compressor and drier to the repair facility.

We would like to reiterate, any warranty on the supplied parts and labor, either with CARS or CARS’ supplier ended when the customer’s service contract expired. In addition, the customer was given the option of having CARS ship replacement parts to the repair facility or to take cash allowance to assist with the repair of the vehicle. To reiterate, the customer chose to have CARS supply the a/c compressor and drier shipped to the repair facility.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled its obligation to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on March 27, 2013 and his vehicle no longer has 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.

Very truly yours,

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 find it very unlikely that C.A.R.S. will make ever the slightest effort to satisfy any complaint made against them. I have read most of the answers to the previous complaints against them and I find a peculiar similarity between them. Unlike many other businesses that actually attempt to serve their customers by extending goodwill gestures, and unlike many business owners that actually personally address issues that their customers may have, C.A.R.S. have all their responses written by an attorney. As we all know attorneys ply their trade not by being equitable nor by being literal but by parsing terms and stretching all understanding of statement to suit their purpose . If at any time the  C.A.R.S.' attorney permitted a resolution that served the customer there would be a chink in the armor and C.A.R.S. would fear that customers might henceforth expect them to be a partner rather then an adversary.

To specifically address the attorneys response:

Most of the response is addressing irrelevant information including:

1) The specific contract renewal periods. 

2) Prior claims.

The attorney also seems to state that I was or am seeking some sort of coverage from C.A.R.S.

1) I am well aware that C.A.R.S. would not renew my policy ( although I desired to ) and therefore it is expired.

2) I am aware that C.A.R.S. has no legal obligation to assist me  by supplying  information on the vendor since my policy is expired and I do not nor have I asked that C.A.R.S. entertain ant type of claim from me.

3) I understand that the "limited warranty" is in effect only as long as the policy is in force. The term "limited warranty",  though ( that which is offered by C.A.R.S.)  , I did not  and do not understand to supersede  and cancel out warranty coverage that is supplied by the manufacturer of the part, in this case 4 Seasons  of TX. who specifically informed me that a claim on the part would need go through the supplier or vendor (the company that purchased the part from 4 Seasons and then sold it to C.A.R.S.) not C.A.R.S. itself.  The contract between myself and C.A.R.S.  does not state that the manufacturer warranty is controlled by contract nor does it state that the supplier would not assist in a manufacturer parts claim  after the contract is expired nor does it state that they would refuse to supply vendor information for a claim at any time.

The attorneys response is a  typical legal stretching of the clear English meaning of terms  and is not justified by an unbiased reading of the contract terms.

I find it very interesting that the attorney stresses that I Chose to trust C.A.R.S. to supply the part and therefore I deserve the outcome. If it were clearly stated in the contract that the part had no manufacturer warranty I would not have trusted C.A.R.S. to supply it. The attorney stresses that under the contract,  C.A.R.S. has the right to supply a part of any quality ( Used, rebuilt, aftermarket ) Since  my contract was about to expire and C.A.R.S. would never have another claim from me why would they supply me with a quality part? 

I propose that it it likely that the part that they sent me was knowingly not of acceptable or even functional quality. Why would they waste their money on a quality part? The attorney, by saying that in April 4 they paid $346.37 to "our parts supplied?" has no actual meaning. With the emphasis that the attorney makes on the letter of the contract and not the spirit it is clear that protecting the bottom line at all costs is  top priority.

Yes, as the attorney stressed  " I CHOSE"  to trust C.A.R.S. to honor  the plain reading of the contract, and I believed that they would supply a quality part with a manufacturer warranty.  My mistake.

By putting in this claim after the deductible and counting the universally low labor estimates that C.A.R.S. makes I wasted out of pocket $300. in labor and materials.  (The refrigerant  and other misc parts  were not covered)  Now I will need to pay this all over again and supply another compressor to boot if I am not able to make a manufacturer warranty claim on the compressor..

Be very careful in dealing with this company or any company which  replaces customer service with a legal team. I do not believe that C.A.R.S will make any effort to assist me with the information I seek  but will continue to be an adversary. C.A.R.S is a "business' but it is not "better"


Regards,

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

 

 

4/23/2014 Problems with Product/Service
4/22/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I am contacting you regarding a warranty claim on a 2003 **** ****** Contract # ********.Per your claims adjuster, *****, This claim has been denied due to the ****** having sludge in the engine. I feel that this resolution is unacceptable. I feel that CARS Protection Plus is in Breach of Contract and I have requested that *** would please forward in writing, the formal denial and a full explanation of the denial along with the contact information of the third party company that performed the inspection. Consumers such as myself, who act in good faith on a purchase of a warranty should not have to go through this level of stress. Although I did my due diligence regarding a post purchase inspection from a reputable vehicle inspector, getting a Carfax report and getting the oil changed, I am not sure what else could have been done to insure the vehicle is in good repair. My wife is without transportation and this has affected her ability to get to and from work . It is noted that your company has a very good rating with the B.B.B, but I also see that you have 151 complaints filed with them, 56 of which were filed in the last 12 months. I feel as though I must turn this over to a Consumer Law Counsel who specialize in Auto Fraud along with The State of Texas Attorney Generals Office. Respectfully,****** *** ********* ****

Desired Settlement: I want the warranty coverage based on the contract.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 4, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. Please be advised that the person who submitted the consumer complaint is not the service contract holder; however, I respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 10, 2014. The odometer registered 132,650 miles at the time of purchase. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (12 Months/15,000 Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 12, 2014. (See attached Service Contract). Please be advised that the person who filed the consumer complaint is not the service contract holder.

On March 26, 2014 at 10:21 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the engine. The repair facility further advised that 133,575 miles registered on the odometer. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, the repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that the pick-up tube appeared to be restricted with sludge. Based on the information provided by the repair facility, CARS determined that an independent inspection was needed on the customer’s vehicle to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle.

The independent inspection occurred on April 1, 2014. The independent inspector found that the engine oil pump had light scoring on the gears and the cover plate. There was heavy sludge in the cylinder heads and in the timing cover. The cam shafts were seized in the cylinder heads and the front head exhaust cam rear cap was cracked. The right head exhaust cam rear cap was cracked. The right head intake cam rear cap was melted and metal was leaking out from between the cam and cam cap. Both of the cams in the rear head had metal coming out from between the cam and the head. All 4 cam shafts were discolored from the lack of lubrication. The sludge in the head was dry and hard. There was carbon and metal in the oil pump pick up tube. There was heavy fine metal in the oil pan.

The independent inspector found the heavy sludge build up caused restriction in the oil system which resulted in a lack of lubrication causing damage to the cams and cylinder heads. The sludge accumulation resulted from long term lack of maintenance. The lack of lubrication to the engine and damage to the engine was in progress prior to the 925 miles that the customer had driven since purchasing the vehicle.

On April 2, 2014 at 10:30 a.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, we were unable to assist with engine claim because of sludge in the engine.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Power Train Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. It is clearly stated in the customer’s service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(p):                                COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: “Damage/failure caused by

carbon, sludge, water ingestion or combustion leaks.” As you can see, damage caused by sludge is clearly not covered under the customer’s service contract.

Please be advised that it clearly stated in the customer’s service contract 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.” Here, the independent inspector found the damage to the customer’s vehicle to have been present prior to the customer’s purchase of the vehicle. The independent inspector also advised that the sludge resulted from long term lack of maintenance, which caused the lack of lubrication to the engine resulting in engine damage.

Furthermore, 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 is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the March 26, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The customer has service contract coverage through its expiration of February 12, 2015. If a claim is opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and 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 (12 Months/15,000 Miles).

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statements regarding our company’s BBB rating. Please be advised that CARS processes hundreds of claims each day and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer's mechanical claims. Please be further advised that CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 151 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved” by the BBB, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition, our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in thirty-one (31) states. At any given time, our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force.

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.

In response to the Statement from the General Counsel for CARS Protection Plus, I want to take the time to point out that the vehicle in question was inspected prior to purchase by an independent third party inspector, who determined that the car was in good working order and the extended warranty was purchased in good faith.  I also had the vehicle serviced which included an Oil Change, and there was not a mention of any issues that would include Sludge build up.  CARS Protection Plus does not require this inspection prior to covering and or offering a warranty.  Short of opening up the engine to determine what amount of sludge is present in the engine, what steps would Counsel suggest to insure a warrant able vehicle and or contract? 

 Sludge is present in any and every vehicle other than a brand new car.  So based on this opinion from General Counsel it should be determined that any vehicle with sludge in the engine, voids it's warranty.  And any and every warranty that CARS protection Plus has written is void and or voidable.  So, what type of coverage is your company selling?

It is insulting that the General Counsel for CARS Protection Plus would continue to use the same response to complaints as if they are already set up in a pre typed template.


Regards,

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

 

 

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 8, 2014, enclosing the customer’s response regarding our April 4, 2014 letter. Please be advised that the customer response is inaccurate and untrue. The customer states that aM vehicles have sludge in them. Pursuant to our claims manager, who has an extensive history with vehicles and vehicle repairs, please be advised that if any given vehicle is properly maintained, there will be no sludge build up in the engine.

Here the repair facility that the customer chose to repair the vehicle advised CARS that the cause of failure was due to sludge build up. Additionally, the independent inspector’s report also confirmed and verified that the failure of the engine was due to lack of lubrication and long term lack of maintenance caused by heavy sludge build up. This means that there was such a heavy sludge build up in the engine components that the engine oil could not properly lubricate the engine to make it run properly, which caused the severe damage. I have attached several photographs obtained from the independent inspection that clearly depicts the heavy sludge buildup, which is a result of long term maintenance neglect. The amount of sludge shown in these photographs is not normal and is not present in vehicles that have been properly maintained. The sludge build up and subsequent lack of lubrication even caused metal to melt on several of the internal components. I would also like to point out and reiterate that the independent inspector clearly stated that the failures were present prior to the customer’s purchase of the vehicle and prior to the 925 miles driven on the vehicle since the date of purchase.

The customer states that the vehicle was inspected prior to purchase. If a proper pre-purchase inspection of the customer’s vehicle occurred, an oil pressure test would have clearly shown that there was very low oil pressure, which would have been a clear indicator that there was a problem with the vehicle’s engine. Additionally, the customer also stated that the vehicle had an oil change; however, the independent inspection clearly revealed that the heavy sludge build up caused a restriction in the oil system which resulted in the lack of lubrication of the cam shafts and cylinder heads. Therefore, any recent oil change would have not eliminated and alleviated the severe damage already in progress to the customer’s vehicle.

The customer also states that she purchased our service contract in good faith. Please be advised that CARS also approved the customer’s service contract in “good faith" by relying on the fact that the vehicle was in good working condition and free from defects. As stated previously, CARS does business in thirty-one (31) states and we cannot be present at every vehicle purchase; therefore, CARS relies that the selling dealers are selling vehicles to customers that are free from a preexisting defect(s) and are in good working condition. It is the sole obligation of the selling dealers to ensure that all their vehicles are in good working condition prior to customer purchase. To reiterate, the failures to the customer’s vehicle were not catastrophic, there were clearly present and in progress prior to the 925 miles driven on the vehicle since the date of purchase.

Furthermore, CARS service contracts are intended for coverage of vehicles that experience mechanical problems that occur during the coverage period; not mechanical problems that are pre­existing prior to CARS acceptance with payment. Again, by the customer’s signature on the customer’s Power Train Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states that sludge is not covered and component failures that occur before approval. are not covered. I again attach the customer’s terms and conditions of the customer’s executed service contract for your review.

Accordingly, we believe that we have thoroughly answered all the facts surrounding this matter and for all the reasons stated and in our April 4, 2014 response letter; therefore, CARS vehemently stands behind its original decision and we are unable to offer any assistance with the March 26, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Thank you.

 


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,

****** ****

 

 

3/31/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: CPP is a sham that shouldn't be purchased by anyone. Provided by a dealer at a cost to me of $500, this warranty is worthless. Things it does say are covered are NOT being covered and what little they do cover is at a drastically discounted rate that isn't available at any mechanic. They have a $100. deductible for every claim, will only pay the mechanic $60. per hour and doesn't pay for the labor required to disassemble the vehicle to the point where diagnosis can be made. I have a $877. bill and they are paying $190!I will be contacting NY and Vermont Attorney Generals regarding the fraudulent business practiced of CARS Protection Plus

Desired Settlement: I want the purchase price of this warranty refunded to me and i will pay aforementioned bill myself.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 13, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on November 21, 2013 from ******* ************* **** *****. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customers’ service contract was received with payment and approved on November 21, 2013 (the attached service contract).

On January 21, 2014 at 10:27 a.m., our customer service department received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the hydraulic lifters and clutch fans. We reviewed the customer’s coverage with the customer and the criteria for a repair facility.

On February 12, 2014 at 1:52 a.m., our customer service department again received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the hydraulic lifters, clutch fans, and a steering issue. We again reviewed the customer’s coverage with the customer and the criteria for a repair facility. The customer wanted CARS to supply the names of repair facilities that the customer could take the vehicle to for repairs. The customer asked to speak to a supervisor. The customer service manager advised the customer advised the customer that we do not recommend repair facilities. The customer service manager gave the customer his direct extension for any repair facility to call if the repair facility had any questions about the customer’s coverage. The customer advised the customer service manager that the customer was going to report us to the BBB and ended the telephone call.

On March 10, 2014 at 10:35 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the power steering pump and clutch fan. 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 as follows: We could supply the fan clutch for $49.95 and power steering pump for $97.12. We would pay $5.00 toward the fluids needed for the repair of the vehicle. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated the repair should take 2.3 hours to complete and the service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $138.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We then advised the repair facility that the total amount we could authorize for the claim was $190.07, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the parts as stated above and also pay $38.00 towards the labor or CARS could pay the total amount of $190.07 towards the repair. The repair facility advised us that they would call CARS back with the customer’s decision.

That was the last communication that we had with the repair facility or the customer. We are still waiting to hear back from the repair facility with the customer’s decision on whether the customer would like us to ship the parts to the repair facility or take the cash allowance towards the repair of the customer’s choice.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customers’ service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(c): “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.” 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.

In addition, under the terms and conditions of the service contract it is clearly stated at Paragraph 3(f): “CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selects the above-mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of those parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer has the choice to have our replacement parts shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair.

Please be advised that it clearly 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 claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair the vehicle, the repair facility advised us that its labor rate was $80.00 dollars per hour. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customer is responsible for the difference in labor rate and time.

Please be further advised that the customer’s service contract clearly and concisely states at Paragraph 2 (j): “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.” Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract a $100.00 deductible is applied to each and every claim made on behalf of the service contract holder’s vehicle.

Furthermore, the customers’ service contract clearly states under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(a): Your vehicle must be at a gualified repair facility within the continental <st1:country-region>United States</st1:country-region>, in order for a claim to be opened.” CARS does not find or choose repair facilities for the repair of vehicles. We require that the repair facility be qualified to do repairs and allow the service contract holder to make the decision of where to take their vehicle for repairs.

In addition, pursuant to the customers’ 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 their financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

The customer also stated in the consumer complaint that the customer paid $500.00 for the service contract. As you can clearly see on the service contract, it lists the service contract purchase price as $329.00. The customer is also requesting a full refund of the executed service contract.

The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3 (a through 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. 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.”

Please be 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, the customer signed the service contract application when he purchased the above­referenced vehicle stating that the customer had read, understood and agreed to the terms of the service contract. Therefore, CARS is not directed by any state statute to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract.

At this time we are waiting to hear back from the repair facility in regard to the customer’s decision so that we may give an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

Please be advised that CARS processes hundreds of claims each day and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer’s mechanical claims. Please be further advised that CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 165 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved” by the BBB, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in thirty-one (31) states and at any given time our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force.

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.

3/24/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a vehicle warranty plan. In November 2013, when my wife was inquiring about what was covered on her vehicle. Also when she inquired about my vehicle plan, she was told both plans expire in 2015. Due to being told that the plan expired in 2015 and not 2014, we decided to delay getting what is needed to be done on my vehicle to when I wouldn't need it for work. When trying to discuss this with the company, we are told they have no record of the call. They also state that they provided us with expiration cards of some type, which we never received. When my wife tried to get this resolved on Friday, March 14, she was told the company is closing and that she would have to call back on Monday, March 17th. My wife explained that she would be unable to due to work and asked to be transferred to the Manager. Upon transfer she went right into a voicemail. As a result, she could only leave a message. She called approximately 4:15. Company stated they close at 4:30. The individual that called and left the voicemail on our home phone stated that he was sending an email. However, the phone message and email was not the same individual, which is a little confusing. What was stated in email was the same statements that customer service provided on Friday. Nothing further. Special note: we had purchased both contracts at the same time for the same year. We did it deliberately.

Desired Settlement: Full refund of what we paid on my vehicle contract or an adjustment to the expiration date to match my wife's expiration date. However, If we find out that this next part will not be covered on my wife's vehicle after the company's rep goes out to the garage this week, we want a full refund on her vehicle plan and my vehicle plan.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 18, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner:

2002 FORD F150: On March 8, 2011 the customer purchased the vehicle from ******** **** ****** ***. On the same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 12. 2011 (the attached “Service Contract”). The service contract coverage on this vehicle expired on March 12. 2014.

2001 FORD EXPLORER: On March 8, 2011 the customer’s wife purchased the vehicle from ******** **** ****** ***. and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 125,725 miles on the odometer. On that same date, she also applied for a CARS Value Limited Warranty (3 Months/4,500 Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 11, 2011 (the attached “Service Contract”). On May 26, 2011 the customer renewed her service contract via telephone using a credit card for an additional term of 48 months/55,000 Miles. The customer has service contract coverage through June 11, 2015 or when her vehicle reaches 185,225 miles, whichever occurs first.

On March 11, 2013 at 9:01 a.m., we received a telephone call from **** at ***** ****** **** advising that the 2001 Ford Explorer was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the intake manifold gasket. We were advised by the repair facility chosen by the customers that the intake manifold gasket was leaking air, only. CARS was unable to assist with the claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s wife’s service contract.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature contained on the service contract application for the 2001 Ford Explorer, she acknowledged that she read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. It is clearly stated under covered components: “Seals and Gaskets ...Additionally, cylinder head and intake manifold gaskets are covered for coolant leaks.” The repair facility advised us that the intake manifold gaskets were leaking air, not coolant.

At this time, CARS is not clear as to the customer’s statement in his complaint that the company’s rep was going to the garage this week in regard to a part being covered, because there are currently no open claims made on behalf of the 2001 Ford Explorer.

We would also like to point out that the customer stated that his wife spoke to a customer representative on November 12, 2013 in regard to the expiration date of both service contracts. Our records reflect two (2) separate notes and documentation of what was reviewed for each policy during that telephone call. The expiration date of the CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) for the 2002 Ford F150 was not discussed during this telephone call. However, information regarding coverage was emailed to her.

In addition, contract identification cards were mailed to both the customer and his wife on March 17, 2011. If is clearly stated in the customers’ service contracts under terms and conditions: “Should you not receive notice from CARS within fifteen (15) days of the vehicle purchase, as to the status of your limited warranty application, contact us.” At no time prior to this complaint did the customers contact CARS to advise that they had not received notice (i.e. ID Cards) from CARS that their service contracts were accepted. Additionally, during the November 12, 2013 telephone call, the wife stated that they had also lost the paperwork on their respective service contracts.

Please be advised that CARS keeps detailed files on all CARS service contracts. CARS did mail the customers their I.D. Cards, which clearly state the inception date, type of coverage, inception mileage and expiration date/mileage, if applicable, for their respective vehicles and service contract coverage. CARS never received any documentation returned from the post office of any undeliverable mail for either of these vehicles. Therefore, we believe that the customers did receive them and that they also had a duty to keep records of their respective service contracts in the event the vehicles required mechanical issues.

Furthermore, the service contract for the 2002 Ford F150 expired on March 12. 2014. This vehicle no longer has coverage under any of CARS’ service contracts. Since the 2001 Ford Explorer was renewed, this vehicle does have service contract coverage through June 6. 2015 or when her vehicle reaches 185,225 miles, whichever occurs first.

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:

Dear Better Business Bureau,

This company records conversations, please ask them to provide the entire recording without edits of any type of when my wife called in November 2013.  Notes in a computer can be easily deleted.   They are NOT presenting the entire facts and we are trying to proof it, which is going to take time.   In regards to the manifold leaking air in March 2013, I am going to have to check our records and the garages records, something seems wrong with what they stated.

Special note:  Also, it seems to us that the managers are also behaving like customer reps.  When asked for a manager, they give us another rep.  My wife spoke with a customer rep, *******, on Friday, March 14th.   She asked for a Manager and left a message on a voice mail.  The individual that called and emailed back never stated he was the manager.  Also, it was not underneath of his contact information as him (*****) being a manager.  When asked for someone above him, she was provided with *******'s contact information.  However, when she emailed her it bounced back.  She then asked ***** to send her the correct email.  He did so without apology.  When she asked ******* for someone above her, she was given another individual's contact information who then compared our contract with pizza.    There seems to be a handful of individuals working here.  There are also a number of complaints online regarding this company.  Please check deeper into this company.  This company is very non customer friendly.

 

3/21/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a vehicle warranty with this company just 5 months ago on 8/20/2013for there value plus plan which covered my vehicle 24 months unlimited mileage.I sold my vehicle on 2/19/2013 and purchased another vehicle.I called the company to see if they would transfer my coverage to my other vehicle.The lady i talked to said no they could not do that.I asked if i could get a partial refind because ionly had the plan 5 months and she got rude with me and said no as well.They kept my money and said she would send me a cancellation letter.So anybody that buys that vehicle can not continue coverage as well.What a rip off companyBUYER BEWARE OF THIS COMPANY

Desired Settlement: A partial refund would be fair

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 3, 2014 enclosing the consumer complaint. Please be advised that the individual who submitted the complaint is not the service contract holder; however, I will still respond in the following manner: On August 20, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on that date also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) and was accepted with payment by CARS on August 24, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On February 24, 2014 at 1:31 p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to request a transfer of the Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles) to the customer’s new vehicle since the above-referenced vehicle had been sold. At that time, CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract, the service contract was not transferable to another vehicle. The customer then requested a prorated refund. Again, CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, no refund was available.

By the customer’s signature, he 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): 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. Please refer to the terms and conditions of the service contract for all of our cancellation provisions at Paragraph 5 (a through d).

Please be advised that CARS is regulated by state statute regarding refund policies in 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 not directed by any state statute to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract. In additions, it is clearly stated at Paragraph 4 (a): “SERVICE CONTRACT TRANSFER PROVISIONS: ...CARS will not transfer the contract to another vehicle or business.” Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS is not able to transfer services contracts from one vehicle to another.
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

3/20/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: In November of 2013 I purchased a 2001 BMW 3251 and at that time purchased a 3 year warranty which was paid in full at that time. At that time I had enough time to briefly look over the contract that I did in fact sign at that time. The effective date of the contract was 11/22/2013 and the expiration date of the contract is 11/22/2016.I have since used the warranty one time and they did in fact pay what they were obligated to pay (so they say.) My complaint is this warranty should have in detail an appromiate amount the company would be obligated to pay for a covered part/labor. They lead you to believe that having this warrantly in the long run will save you a tremendous amount of money over the long which just isn't true! After talking with others concerning this company's warranty I came to the conclusion it just not that prudent to carry this coverage.I decided to contact the contract cancellation department this date 2/26/2014 and explore my options in canceling this warranty. I spoke with a fellow name ***** and was inform that since I paid for the 3 year warranty upfront which came to over ($2,000.00) instead of financing the amount for the warranty with the purchase price of the car I was not entitled to any type of refund and event if I had financed the warranty the dealer would have been the one entitle to the refund which I certainly understand.I took out a three year top of the line warranty from Cars and it seems the only party that has the right to cancel and not lose a dime from this warranty is Cars Protection Plus. I know Cars will reply like every other way they do in saying the consumer signed the contract saying he had read the contact and I did sign the contract but I certainly didn't understand once I paid for the warranty in full and I wasn't completely satisfied I would not be eligible for a refund under any circumstance.

Desired Settlement: I would simply like to cancel the warranty and be refunded any monies after Cars Protection Plus has been compensated for what they have paid out under this warranty along with what ever they are entitled to as in the same terms as they would make a refund to a dealer assuming their warranty had been financed. I think this warranty is extremly unfair for those who pay the full amount upfront instead of financing the warranty.I now realize I should have financed the warranty!

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 26, 2014 enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On November 14, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Plus Service Contract (36 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 22, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On February 10, 2014, at 9:36 a.m., we received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically an oil leak from the filter housing gasket, left lower ball joint arm, and leaking strut. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. We also explained to the repair facility that the strut and any oil leak were non-covered components pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

We then went over the amount we could authorize for the covered components of the repair with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the left lower ball joint arm for $86.99. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 1.4 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract paid up to $90.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $126.00. The total value of the claim was $212.99. We explained that we could supply the left lower                                                                                                             ball joint arm            and pay

$126.00 towards labor or pay $212.99 towards the repair of the customer’s   choice.       We then asked

the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On February 10, 2014, the repair facility advised us that the customer chose to take the cash allowance towards the repair. After receiving the final invoice evidencing that the repairs were completed, CARS paid the repair facility $212.99 via credit on February 14, 2104 card pursuant to the terms and       conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On February 26,                         2014, at 11:46 a.m., the customer spoke   to   a CARS    service

representative to inquire about cancelling the service contract. During that telephone call, CARS advised the customer that CARS is not directed by any state statute in the state where he resided which superseded our cancellation provisions and that he was not entitled to any refund. We also explained that our state cancellation provisions are clearly stated in our service contracts.

By the customer’s signature, 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 3 (a through 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. 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.”

Please be 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, 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 not directed by any state statute to refund any monies to the customer for the cancellation of a service contract

The customer also stated in his complaint that he paid $2,000.00 for the service contract. As you can clearly see on the service contract, it lists the service contract purchase price as $1,699.00. CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers and the dealers have the right to make profits on the service contracts.

Furthermore, it is clearly stated in the customer’s executed service contract: “Covered Components: “Coverage limited to above components.” and “under Term and Conditions at Paragraphs 1(a) & (r): “Components and Expenses Not Covered: Components not listed regardless of failure.” and “Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks.”

Accordingly, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract executed by the customer, the struts and fluid leaks are not listed as covered components under the service contract. In addition, CARS stands behind its decision and the customer is not entitled to 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%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Consumer Response:

Reference is hereby made to your assigned ID claim number *******. Please be advised as far as I’m concerned my complaint has not been resolved by Cars Protection.
 

3/20/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a warranty for coverage of my 2008 BMW 1 year ago. I have never used it for any repairs before. I recently had to have my starter replaced. I have a reputable mechanic working on my vehicle. They quoted them $1024.00 for labor and parts. C.A.R.S stated that they would only pay $351.00. After my deductible they are only liable for $251.00. That barely covers the price of the starter. I communicated this to them but they refuse to budge. What I can't understand is why communicate that you cover certain repairs, take a person's money, and then refuse to pay a reasonable price for those repairs. I asked them if their price is reasonable then provide me with the name of the shop that would do it for that price. They said that they would not do that. Thus further showing that their price is fictional at best.

Desired Settlement: I would like the full cost of my warranty to be refunded or pay the reasonable price for the repair or provide me with a legitimate place to take my car to that will do the job for your estimate.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 25, 2014, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to our records, the customers purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 4, 2013 from International Motor Productions. On that same date, the customers also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). The customers’ service contract was received with payment and approved on February 4, 2013 (the attached service contract).

On February 25, 2014 at 9:59 a.m., we received a telephone call from Scott at South Point Auto advising that the vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the starter. We then went over our claim procedures with Scott.

During the processing of the claim, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the starter for $143.10 and gaskets for $28.65. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated the repair should take 3.0 hours to complete and the service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $180.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. We then advised the repair facility that the total amount we could authorize for the claim was $251.75, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the parts as stated above and also pay $80.00 towards the labor or CARS could pay the total amount of $251.75 towards the repair. The repair facility advised us that they would call CARS back with the customers’ decision.

On February 25, 2014 at 9:59 a.m., a claims adjuster went over the amount we could authorize for the claim allowance with the customer. We advised the customer to notify the repair facility of their decision. At 11:19 a.m., Scott advised CARS that the customers wanted to take the cash allowance for the repairs. CARS then gave the repair facility an authorization to repair the customer’s vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customers’ service contract. The customers’ service contract clearly states under terms

and conditions at Paragraph 3(c):            “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.” 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.

In addition, under the terms and conditions of the service contract it is clearly stated at Paragraph 3(f): CARS has the right to select and supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selects the above-mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of those parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customers had the choice to have our replacement parts shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair. Here, the customers chose to have the cash allowance to assist with the repair.

Please also be advised that it clearly 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 claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customers to repair the vehicle, the repair facility advised us that its labor rate was $109.00 dollars per hour. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the customers are responsible for the difference in labor rate and time.

Furthermore, the customers’ service contract clearly states under the terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(a): Your vehicle must be at a qualified repair facility within the continental <st1:country-region>United States</st1:country-region>, in order for a claim to be opened.” CARS does not find or choose repair facilities for the repair of vehicles. We require that the repair facility be qualified to do repairs and allow the service contract holder to make the decision of where to take their vehicle for repairs.

Please be further advised that pursuant to the customers’ 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 customers what is specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Furthermore, the customer requested a full refund of the amount listed on the customers’ service contract. CARS service contracts are sold wholesale to dealers; therefore, CARS only receives a set price for each contract sold. Any remaining money from what the customers’ paid and what CARS received are strictly between the customers and the selling dealer. Pursuant to Texas law, CARS is willing to offer the customers a prorated refund of the amount CARS received from the selling dealer which was $899.00, less a $50.00 service fee, and less $251.75 which was the amount that was authorized for the payment of the February 25, 2014 claim opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The total amount of the refund is $353.77. If the customer has not had the repair performed on the customer’s vehicle, the authorized amount will be reflected in the refund. Accordingly, since the dealer paid us for the service contract, we will send the refund to the selling dealer. This provides an opportunity to the selling dealer to refund the customer their prorated portion of the profit of the monies due the customers.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a General Release for the customers’ witnessed and notarized signatures if agreeable. Upon our receipt of the enclosed General Release with the customers’ original witnessed and notarized signatures, we will send the refund check to the selling dealer who would then issue a check back to the     customers.

Please be advised that CARS processes         hundreds of claims     each day    and pays hundreds

of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer’s mechanical claims. Please be further advised that CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 165 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved” by the BBB, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in thirty-one (31) states and at         any given time                             our                                                                                     company             has 80,000 or more

service contracts in force. We honor every contract that we sell             and we stand     behind our product

100%.

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.


3/5/2014 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I was told when I purchased this warranty that it covered all mechanical failures with the exception of standard wear and tear. I took my vehicle to ************* ****** *** ******* *** ** ******* ******* ************* *** *****, to find out was wrong. The mechanics name is *** ********, President owner of the company. It was diagnosed as needing an oil pump seperator and oil pump pick-up. Supposedly there was a service bulletin put out on this part. After his contact with the warranty company named above, he was told this was not covered. However, the warranty company did make him aware that if the engine blew up it would have been covered. If I have driven this car without that part working it would have blown up. The manual directed me what to do when the light came on. My complaint is rather then drive it and blow up the motor I used what I thought was proper judgement and had the vehicle towed for repair. The engine could be bad but they can"t run it without oil pressure. I tried to do what I thought would be right and also least expensive for the warranty company. I am not sure why they would tell me it would be better if the motor blew up because that would be covered. This repair is much less expensive and is not a normal wear and tear item so it should be covered. I have now been without my vehicle for 2 full months and all I've been told is they deny for repairs and it's not covered yet if I would have driven it under these conditions and blew the motor, then it ould be covered. This makes zero sense to me. I am just seeking resolution to this and was told the car was covered 100% mechanically when I purchased the warranty. The mechanic has talked with them on several occassions to no avail. The only reason I purchased this car was because the warranty was to take care of major mechanical issues. Now I am making payments on a vehicle that won"t even run. Please let me know your findings as everything I have told you is 100% correct and I feel they are taking advantage of me. Thank you!

Desired Settlement: I simply want it repaired. As stated by the mechanic, the motor could already be bad but you cannot run it to find out without having oil pressure. As previously stated, I was told all mechanical issues were covered under this warranty when I purchased it.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2014, 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 29, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on April 2, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

On January 17, 2014 at 4:16 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the oil separator. The repair facility further advised that the oil separator was under the intake manifold. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

On January 20, 2014 at 9:39 a.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, the failure was not an internally lubricated part; therefore, no coverage was available. The oil separator is external to the engine and is located under the intake manifold and therefore the sole responsibility of the customer to repair.

In a January 27, 2014 telephone call and in a voice message on January 28, 2014, a CARS’ service representative reviewed the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract multiple times with the customer to explain why CARS was unable to assist with the January 17, 2014 mechanical claim.

We would like to point out here that the customer states in the consumer complaint that the customer has been without a vehicle for two (2) full months; however, until the mechanical claim was opened by the repair facility on January 17. 2014, CARS was not made aware of any issues with the customer’s vehicle. In addition, the repair facility advised CARS during the January 17, 2014 telephone call that the customer’s vehicle was towed in to the facility on January 8, 2014.

Furthermore, in the customer’s consumer complaint he stated that CARS advised the repair facility that if the engine had blown up it would have been covered under his service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states 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.” If the customer had continued to drive the vehicle until the engine failed as a result of the oil separator, CARS would not been able to assist with the repair because the failure of a non-covered component (oil separator) caused the failure to a covered component (engine). Therefore, CARS would not have advised the repair facility for the customer to continue to drive his vehicle to cause damage to the engine. CARS advises customers to take their vehicles to a repair facility when the vehicle has mechanical issues.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. It is clearly stated in the customer’s 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 oil separator is not listed as a covered component under the customer’s service contract.

In addition, the customer refers to a Technical Service Bulletin written about the oil separator. Here, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract it is clearly stated in the terms and conditions 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 failure to the customer’s vehicle was a non- covered component (oil separator) under the service contract; however, if a covered component under the service contract had failed and there was a Technical Service Bulletin about said part then it would not be covered under the service contract. The repair would then be the responsibility of the customer.

Furthermore, 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 is specifically covered and the customer’s financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.

Please be further advised that the customer states in the consumer complaint that the repair facility’s mechanic has spoken to CARS several times to no avail. CARS has only spoken to the repair facility on two (2) occasions; the first when the mechanical claim was opened on January 17, 2014 and again on January 20, 2014 when we advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the mechanical claim.

Please be advised that CARS relies on the information provided to us by the repair facility to determine if a part is covered under our service contracts. The repair facility chosen by the customer advised CARS that the “oil separator” failed on the vehicle and this is not listed as a covered component under the customer’s service contract as stated above.

If the customer’s repair facility has further information to provide in regard to the failure of the vehicle, please have the customer’s repair facility open a new claim and CARS will review the
new findings and determine if the failure is covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of your service contract.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the January 17, 2014 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. The customer has service contract coverage through its expiration of April 2, 2017. If a claim is opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and 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 (48 Months/Unlimited Miles).

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.


2/27/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Cars Protection Plus insisted on furnishing (shipping) a used engine to my local repair shop to replace a defective engine. Two months later the engine is leaking oil. Cars Protection Plus is now claiming that the engine they furnished has no warranty on it. If the local repair shop had been allowed to replace the engine I would have received a warranty on the used engine. Cars Protection Plus uses tactics that scam consumers.

Desired Settlement: Cars Protection Plus must warranty the engine they furnished to my local repair shop. The industry standard is six to twelve months.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 10, 2014, 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 August 30, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (24 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on September 3, 2013. (See attached Service Contract).

On October 24, 2013 at 3:53 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the engine. We then went over claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, after the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and estimate for repair, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the engine for $950.00 and pay $48.00 towards fluids. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 11.5 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $690.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $1,688.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the engine and pay $690.00 towards labor or pay $1,688.00 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 29. 2013 at 3:27 p.m.. the repair facility advised us that the customer wanted to CARS to ship our supplied engine to the repair facility.

On October 30, 2013, at 4:41 p.m., the customer telephoned us to check on the status of the engine claim. We advised the customer that the repair facility told us that the customer wanted CARS to ship our supplied engine to the repair facility. We also went over the options of shipping the engine to the repair facility or the customer taking the cash allowance, which was explained to the repair facility in detail as outlined above.

After CARS received the final invoice verifying that the repairs were complete, CARS paid the repair facility the amount of $638.00 via credit card on November 7, 2013. CARS also paid the supplier for the customer’s supplied engine.

Thereafter, on February 7, 2014 at 10:51 a.m., the customer advised a customer service representative that the water hose broke off the customer’s vehicle because the mechanic who replaced the engine vehicle forgot to put a clamp on the hose. Later that same day, the customer was advised by a customer service representative to take the vehicle to a repair facility and have a claim properly opened.

On February 7, 2014 at 3:23 p.m., the customer telephoned the claims adjustor who worked on the October 24, 2013 claim asking if the oil pan on his vehicle was covered for leaks. The claim adjustor advised the customer that the oil pan gasket is a non-covered component pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On February 10, 2014, the customer emailed CARS in regard to this matter. We have enclosed a copy of the email (attached) sent to our customer service department and our response (attached) for your review.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): 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 used the cost of the part to be shipped to the repair facility and also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer had the choice to have our supplied engine shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. In this case, the customer chose to take have CARS ship an engine to the repair facility. We were advised of the customer’s decision by the repair facility. Additionally, on October 30, 2013 the claim adjustor also went over the options as stated above with the customer.

Please be further advised that the engine that was supplied for the customer’s vehicle had a ninety (90) day parts and labor warranty. The warranty for the replacement engine has now expired and any failures to the engine will be reviewed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

In addition, the customer’s service contract clearly states 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 clearly stated at Paragraph 3(b): “The repair facility must call C.A.R.S. at ###-###-#### to open a claim.” As of this date, the customer has not taken his vehicle to a repair facility to open a claim; therefore, we cannot determine the cause and extent of the failure to his vehicle. As you can see from the above paragraphs the customer has advised CARS and the BBB of different causes of failures (i.e. the engine, the oil pan, and an improper previous repair of the clamp not being placed on water hose). We cannot determine the cause and extent of failure to the customer’s vehicle unless the customer takes his vehicle to a repair facility to have a claim properly opened.

We would like to reiterate here that as stated above the customer’s engine did have a warranty on parts and labor that has now expired. In addition, the customer was given the option of having CARS ship a replacement engine to the repair facility or to take cash allowance to assist with the repair of his vehicle. The customer chose to have CARS supplied replacement engine shipped to the repair facility.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled its obligation to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract. If a claim is opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle and 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 (24 Months/Unlimited Miles).

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.

2/14/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Despite the fact that this Automotive Warranty Protection Plan was presented as a complete mechanical coverage for any engine or transmission issue, it was nothing of the sort. I took very good care of my vehicle and when it started having an issue with running too hot, I took extra precaution to never allow it to over heat. Even though it never overheated, it was determined that it had a head gasket issue. From the very beginning of dealing with the CARS Protection Plus company, the staff at my selected repair facility, as well as myself, carefully followed the restrictive instructions of the CARS Protection Plus company. It was clear from the beginning that we would be required to go through a litany of impossible requirements only to end up with the inevitable final result of denied coverage. Not only was it made clear that I had to pay for the entire tear down of the vehicle just to even determine the issue, but even at that point they had another restriction that stated if the head gasket was due to losing coolant it would be covered, but if it was due to losing combustion it would not be covered. Well, that is ridiculous. They would cover it if I let it run out of coolant? But since it was clearly not due to neglect, I am not covered? Again, I was not surprised at the outcome after the first day of contact with the CARS Plus Protection company. I expect that even if that were not the reason, then there would be many other fine print restrictions that would more than cover this unethical company from doing what it advertises it does. CARS Protection Plus does NOT cover what it claims to cover. Save your money. Automotive Dealers, You need to know that whatever incentive you are being offered from the CARS Protection Plus company to offer this program to your customers is not a value to your customers. It could also end up hurting your business if you continue to offer this bogus coverage. Do NOT do business with CARS Protection Plus!

Desired Settlement: I paid $3500 for a repair that I feel should have been covered. I would have been happy to have even half of it covered after it became apparent this company was not going to be reliable.

Consumer Response:

As I stated in the complaint, this coverage is represented as a motor train protection plan. Therefore since this is a motor train issue, and without any indication of neglect, this should be covered. I do not have a copy of my contract. I am referring to the contract information on their website: *******************************************************Whether or not the fine print of this contract removes any obligation from the CARS company or not, this product, the advertising on the website, the message from the 3rd party vehicle salesperson, and even the details of the CARS online contract imply protection against motor train issues. Only after an issue exists, when you are forced to drill into the details of this contract, do you realize that every individual mechanical component of your engine may be covered as listed on the contract, but nothing else. Not even the parts that hold these mechanical components together are covered, nor the gaskets that hold these components together, nor the labor to take that component off to look and see the issue, etc. If one part of this job had started before we contacted the CARS company, coverage would have been denied. Yet, They don't even cover that part anyway. It is simply one more fine print line written to enable this company a legal excuse to deny coverage. This company is misrepresenting coverage that does not exist.

This may not be a legal contract violation, but it is a misrepresentation that is being manipulated by an unethical company for profit.  

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 12, 2014, enclosing the above­referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on February 11, 2011. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Limited Warranty (36 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on February 18, 2011 (See attached Service Contract).

On January 27, 2014 at 3:43 p.m., a mechanical claim was called in by the repair facility. The repair facility advised that the customer’s vehicle was running hot but not losing coolant. We then went over our claim procedures. At that time we explained that the repair facility needed to obtain the customer’s permission to tear the customer’s vehicle down to the point of failure. We were subsequently advised that the customer gave approval for the teardown of the customer’s vehicle.

During the processing of the claim, we were advised verbally by the repair facility that the pressure test showed hydrocarbons, which is a combustion leak. We were further advised of failure to the head gasket at cylinder #1 and that the head gasket was leaking combustion.

On February 10, 2014 at 3:07 p.m., we advised the repair facility that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract CARS was not able to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Plus Limited Warranty, the customer acknowledged that the customer read and understood the terms and conditions of the service contract contained therein. Our service contracts are clear and unambiguous. The customer’s limited warranty clearly states, “cylinder head gaskets are covered for coolant leaks only.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer found that the cylinder head gasket failure was due to a combustion leak. Therefore, we were correct in our denial of the claim in accordance to the terms and conditions of the customer’s Value Plus Limited Warranty.

We would like to point out here that the customer’s service contract clearly states: “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.” The customer is responsible for all tear down and diagnostics performed on the customer’s vehicle. We were not requiring unnecessary tear down and diagnosis; we were only trying to determine that the cause of failure to the customer’s vehicle would be properly repaired the first time and to determine if the failure would be covered pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

Furthermore, 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 is specifically covered and the customer’s 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; therefore, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s servicer contract, we were unable to assist with the January 27, 2014 mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. In closing I would also like to point out that CARS pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week in customers’ claims.

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.

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 I stated earlier, I am sure this unethical company has a legal stance on not providing the coverage implied in the sale of this agreement. I will not begin to argue that. But, just as they state that the head gasket repair would be covered if it were due to loss of coolant rather than a combustion issue. Sounds good right? But earlier in the contract they are excluded from any loss due to improper maintenence or fluid issues. Therefore, even if this were caused by loss of coolant, they would not cover the repair for a different reason. That would at least be a better reason not to cover because it would show neglect on my part. Yet, I had no neglect in this situation. This contract is written to be able to not cover any expense in any situation. 

   My point is... This is an unethical company that is misrepresenting a warranty as complete motor train coverage when it covers absolutely nothing. I wish to share this information with other potential victims.  

Regards,

***** *****

 

 

2/7/2014 Problems with Product/Service
1/21/2014 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: The week of January 5, 2014 the mechanic, who is working on my pickup, called C.A.R.S to open a claim as the transmission on vehicle needed to be replaced. During this week the mechanic determined the cost of a manufactured transmission and called C.A.R.S. The total cost out of my pocket to go this route would have been $2,200 (C.A.R.S. was not willing to pay the mechanic what it cost for him to buy a manufactured transmission). The other option was to have C.A.R.S. mail a used transmission with my out of pocket costs being around $500. So on January 10, 2014 the mechanic spoke to adjuster to advise him that I went with option two - shipping the used transmission. Adjuster stated part will arrive to mechanic on Tuesday the 14th. End of business on the 14th no part. Wednesday afternoon no part was received by the mechanic so I called customer service who stated part would be at the mechanic by the end of business. End of business on the 15th still no part. On Thursday I stopped at the mechanic (around 4pm) and there was still no part. At this time I called customer service who called the adjuster. According to customer service the adjuster stated the vendor said the part would be either received end of business on the 16th but if not on the 17th. If C.A.R.S. would have agreed to the price set by my mechanic (less the $100 deductible) for him to purchase a re-manufactured transmission my car would have been completed at this time. A week later and still no part from C.A.R.S. even though it was promised two days ago.Poor customer service, poor communication, and overall horrible experience that I will never ever buy a warranty through this company again. I would advise everyone to run before purchasing a warranty through C.A.R.S.

Desired Settlement: I would like C.A.R.S. to pay the price my mechanic provided for him to purchase a re-manufactured transmission. Due to the issues involved I am not comfortable (or even trust) that the part that will even be delivered, whenever that maybe, will be in working condition.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 17, 2014, 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 August 14, 2010. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Limited Warranty (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on August 19, 2010 (See attached Service Contract).

On December 27, 2013 at 4:23 p.m., a claim was called in by the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the transmission. During the processing of the claim, we went over the options we could authorize for the claim and the customer chose to have the transmission shipped to the repair facility. We ordered the transmission from our supplier on January 7, 2014 and advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival time of the transmission was January 14, 2014.

On January 15, 2014 at 3:45 p.m., we were advised that the transmission had not arrived at the repair facility. Our supplier advised CARS that the transmission was delayed due to inclement weather and should arrive on January 16, 2014.

CARS was unaware that the transmission was not shipped by our supplier until we received your letter. Although CARS has no control over the shipment of said parts, CARS in a good will gesture contacted the customer upon receipt of your letter and offered assistance with the car rental. We have also spoken with the supplier who is working with CARS regarding the delay of the shipping of the transmission.

Please be advised that by his signature, the customer acknowledged that he read and understood the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions: “ADDITIONAL TERMS: C.A.R.S. will not be responsible for any time lost any inconvenience caused by the loss of your vehicle, the gualitv of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have.” As stated above CARS has no control over our suppliers shipping dates; however we do have an obligation to the customer and we are working diligently to ensure that the customer’s vehicle is repaired as quickly as possible.

We would like to point out here that since the inception of the customer’s service contract, nine (9) claims were opened by repair facilities on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Of those nine (9) claims, CARS authorized seven (7) claims for payment by CARS, including the most recent claim. On three (3) claims, the customer was given a choice of taking our money allowance or having the parts shipped and the customer chose to take the money allowance. On four (4) of the claims, the customer was given a choice of taking the money allowance or have the parts shipped. The customer chose have the parts shipped. There were no issues with the shipped parts during the processing of those claims. Two (2) of the claims were not authorized by CARS because the failed components where not covered under the customer’s service contract pursuant to its terms and conditions.

Please be advised that to date, CARS has paid the total of $2,245.12 in six (6) claims towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle, as well as the additional amount of $1,042.80 in parts and labor, to be paid once the repairs are completed on the vehicle for the December 27, 2013 claim. To reiterate, we are also willing to assist the customer with rental, due to the delay of the shipping of the transmission.

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. At this time, January 21, 2014, the part still has not arrived at the mechanic. CARS did not contact me and offer assistance with a car rental. It was my discussion with a supervisor on Friday January 17th that lead to this offer. Though it was a nice gesture on their part the fact that a part cannot be delivered as promised and the fact that it is now a week after the first initial delivery date I do not trust CARS to reimburse me for any expenses I will incur in renting a vehicle.

To state that CARS was unaware the part was never shipped until the initial letter was received contradicts the various discussions I have had over the past week with customer service and the supervisor. Once the part was not received as scheduled CARS was contacted and notified that product was not received. With each subsequent call the expected arrival date was changed. The latest, according to the supervisor, was either Monday (1/20) or Tuesday (1/21).

Though CARS is not responsible for any time lost or inconvenience as a result and are not responsible for control over shipment of the part the fact of the matter is I have received nothing but a run-around with promises of delivery only for those promises to be changed.

Regards,

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

 

 

1/14/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I do not appreciate the way that they treat customers to due their was an issue with my banking and had to be addressed and Cars Protection Plus said that they could never service my vehicle again. Example: ( If my cable bill was disconnected and I paid what was due they would reconnect my service but Cars will not service me ever again. I think that is so unfair to a loyal customer)

Desired Settlement: I would like to be able to receive service again and I'm willing to pay.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 20, 2013, enclosing the above­referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on April 9, 2013. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Independence Service Contract (Month to Month). Said service contract (attached) was received and approved by CARS on October 11, 2013, when the first payment was processed pursuant to the checking account information the selling dealer provided us. The selling dealer paid the first month’s payment for the customer via check.

On October 21, 2013, CARS mailed the customer a request for the payment authorization form to be checked, completed, and returned to CARS with a voided check. On November 5, 2013, CARS received confirmation from the customer’s financial institution that the customer had an active savings account with them and provided the routing number to us.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s month to month service contract CARS successfully processed the next payment of on November 19, 2013

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s month to month service contract, CARS processed the next payment on December 17, 2013. However, on November 19, 2013, CARS received notification from our banking institution that the customer’s payment of $39.95 had insufficient funds (attached).

Please be advised that our service contracts are clear and unambiguous. By the customer’s signature on the Independence Service, the customer acknowledge that she read, understood, and accepted the terms and conditions contained therein. The customer’s Independence Service Contract clearly states: A NEW CONTRACT will begin a month after the effective date for the original purchaser, as long as payment continues...” and “IF THE CHECKING ACCOUNT OR CREDIT CARD REFERENCED ABOVE HAS INSUFFICIENT FUNDS AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT,

MY SERVICE CONTRACT COVERAGE SHALL TERMINATE.” Since the December 17, 2013 payment of $39.95 was returned due to insufficient funds from the customer’s savings account, CARS was correct in our decision to cancel the customer’s Independence Service Contract.

On December 19, 2013, CARS notified the customer and the selling dealer in writing (attached) that the customer’s Independence Service Contract had been cancelled due to the customer’s account not having sufficient funds to pay for the next month’s coverage period.

In addition, on December 19, 2013, the customer contacted CARS three (3) times to attempt to have her Independence Service Contract renewed. Each time we reviewed the recurring payment terms of her Service Contract and explained to the customer that pursuant to the recurring terms, the customer’s Service Contract had been terminated. During the three (3) telephone conversations, including one (1) with CARS’ office manager, the customer was rude and at times used profanities with CARS staff.

Please be advised that the customer’s Service Contract clearly states at PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT 2(D): We reserve the right to reject or cancel any application or Service Contract for cause as determined by C.A.R.S.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, CARS reserved the right and cancelled the customer’s Service Contract due to the insufficient funds in the customer’s savings account. Therefore, the customer no longer has coverage under her CARS Independence Service Contract and CARS will not reinstate service contract coverage for her vehicle.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled our obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of her Independence 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.

12/30/2013 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a 3 month warranty from C.A.R.S. Protection Plus when I purchased a used car. I read the warranty coverage and thought that it was a good idea to purchase this to make sure that I would not have any major repair issues. Last week the check engine light came on so I brought the car to my mechanic. He said that the intake runner control valve was bad and when he tried to make a claim, C.A.R.S. Protection Plus denied it. My policy number is ********. I called C.A.R.S. Protection Plus and spoke to a supervisor and he said that the claim was denied because the part was not cover. I questioned this because the contract did not exclude this part. The is what it says:"ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEMLubricated parts contained within the engine block; cylinder heads; intake manifold; pistons; piston rings; wrist pins; connecting rods and bearings; crank-shaft and bearings; camshaft and bearings; timing chain and gears; valve covers; rocker arms/shafts and bushings; intake/exhaust valves and valve springs, seats, guides, push rods and hydraulic lifters; oil pump; oil pan; serpentine belt tensioner; fly wheel; oxygen sensor; EGR valve; crank sensor; cam sensor; fuel pump; lift pump; transfer pump; and factory installed turbo/supercharger. Engine block only if damaged by a covered component internal to the engine block. Timing belt, fuel injectors, EGR cooler and oil cooler are not covered."He said that it wasn't covered because it is not an internally lubricated part. Many of the parts that listed above are not internally lubricated and they are covered. The list also shows specific parts that are not covered, and "intake runner control valve" are not listed.I think that this contract is miss leading and fraudulent! I am now faced with a $500 repair that should have been covered.My original contract did NOT included the "terms and conditions" page that is listed on the website. It only listed the "Value Plus Service Contract" from the link below (top section only): http://carsprotectionplus.com/coverages/value-plus

Desired Settlement: I would like this repair to be reimbursed (minus my $100 deductible).

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated December 10, 2013, 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 September 17, 2013 and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 107,876 miles on the odometer. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service contract (3 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on September 20, 2013 (See attached Service Contract).

On December 10, 2013 at 10:47 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical problems, specifically the intake runner control valve. During the processing of the claim, the repair facility advised us that the intake runner control valve was vacuum controlled and attached to the side of the intake manifold. CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the December 10, 2013 intake runner control valve claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.

Please be advised that by the customer’s signature on the customer’s service contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein. It is clearly stated in the service contract under terms and conditions at Paragraph 1(a): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure.” Here, the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair the customer’s vehicle found that the only failure was to the intake runner control valve, which is a non-covered component pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

In addition, it is clearly stated in the customer’s service contract: “Covered Components: “Coverage limited to above components.” The intake runner control valve is NOT listed as a covered component pursuant to the customer’s service contract.

Furthermore, the customer’s service contract clearly states under covered components: “ENGINE/FUEL SYSTEM Lubricated parts contained within the engine block.” Please be advised that the intake runner control valve is external to the intake manifold and is NOT an internally lubricated part; therefore, it is not a covered component under the customer’s service contract.

Please be further advised that in the consumer complaint, the customer states that the original contract that the customer received did not contain the terms and conditions page. The terms and conditions are clearly stated on the back of the signature page of the service contract. If the customer has the original contract, the customer does have a copy of the terms and conditions.

Accordingly, CARS has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. Therefore, we stand by our original decision and are unable to assist with the December 10, 2013 intake runner control valve 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.

12/2/2013 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I bought a used truck at a used car dealership and a 3 month warranty was provided. The warranty was 4 days from expiring when the transmission failed. I followed the instructions on the paperwork and carried it to a repair facility and gave them the infomation on the warranty to have repairs made. In the fine print contained in the warranty it states that the repair facility must remove the transmission, tear it down and give CARS the reason for failure, this is considered diagnostics that I must pay for. After this was done and a cost to rebuild the transmission was given to CARS, they instructed them to put in a used transmission with like mileage and gave them the price they would allow. I called and spoke with a supervisor there this morning asking him why they would replace a bad transmission with one with the same mileage. His comments to me were that the unit he was replacing it with had been tested and pressures were checked and it was better than what I had. When I asked him to provide me with written verification that the pressures had been tested and meet specifacation he said he could not do that. He also stated that my warranty had now expired and once I drove the truck away it had no more warranty. He also wanted to play symantics with me and tell me that this was not a "warranty" but a "service contract", it is explicitly implied that this is a warranty. There was a $600 difference in the salvage transmission and rebuilding the bad one, I know there is a $100 deductible, so I asked them to split the difference in the remaining $500 to which he refused. If you do just a little research on this company you can find that these same exact problems exist everywhere they do business. According to a consumer website listing the best used car warranties they do not even make the list. I will also be fowarding this to the Alabama Attorney General's office to try and get them removed from doing business in this state.

Desired Settlement: I would like for them to at least pay half, $250.00, of the differnce, $500.00, in the 2 prices.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 13, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On August 7, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 132,073 miles on the odometer. 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 August 9, 2013 (the attached Service Contract”). The customer’s service contract expired on November 9, 2013.

On November 7, 2013 at 11:25 a.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the transmission. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.

During the processing of the claim, after the repair facility provided us with its cause of failure and estimate for repair, we went over the amount we could authorize for the claim with the repair facility as follows: We could supply the transmission for $850.00. Mitchell’s OnDemand 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. The total value of the claim was $990.00, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could supply the transmission and pay $140.00 towards labor or pay $990.00 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On November 12, 2013 at 9:49 a.m., a claims manager reviewed with the customer all the terms and conditions of his service contract. The claims manager also advised that if the customer chose our supplied transmission for the repair, once the customer’s vehicle leaves the repair facility, there would be no warranty on the shipped transmission because the customer’s service contract expired on November 9, 2013.

Later that same day, the repair facility advised us that the customer would take the money allowance for the repair. We then gave the repair facility an authorization number to begin the repair of the customer’s vehicle. After we received the final invoice (attached) from the repair facility on November 12, 2013 signed by the customer stating that the repairs were completed, CARS paid $990.00 to the repair facility via **** on that same date.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Power Train Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): 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 also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer had the choice to have our supplied transmission shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair of the vehicle. Any supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working condition. In this case, the customer chose to take the money allowance for the repair. It is clearly stated in the service contract that the coverage purchased was for a “used” part. Nowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a used part that has equal or fewer miles when replacing a failed component.

The customer states in his consumer complaint that our service contract claim procedures for diagnostics is in fine print. As you can see from our service contract it is in bold print and the same size print as all of the other terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. It clearly 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.” 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.

In addition, it is clearly stated at Paragraph 2(b):                   ‘PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE

CONTRACT:       Coverage begins the day this application is received with payment and

approved by C.A.R.S., and 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 November 9, 2013; therefore, any transmission that could have been supplied to the customer by CARS would not have coverage beyond November 9, 2013.

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.

Accordingly, CARS is unable to offer any further assistance with the November 7, 2013 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. We believe that we have fulfilled all our
obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer's service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on
November 9, 2013; therefore, the customer no longer has coverage under any of CARS service contracts.

In closing, I want to also address the customer’s statements regarding his “research” on our company. Please be advised that CARS processes hundreds of claims each day and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every week for customer’s mechanical claims. Please be further advised that CARS currently maintains an A+ rating and has maintained this status for several years. While it is true that our Company has over 165 complaints filed against us, each complaint has been marked “resolved” by the BBB, because we promptly responded and also addressed all customers’ concerns. In addition our company has been in business since 1998 and we are currently located in twenty-nine (29) states and at any given time our company has 80,000 or more service contracts in force. We honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%.

When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


 

Very truly yours,

12/2/2013 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased the CARS warranty and followed through with all the required procedures. When my mechanic called to confirm that they indeed would cover the work that needed to be done he was told yes. Upon further review of my claim, it was denied in part. The part that CARS intended on providing me with was a used, non-guaranteed part. They did not cover expenses such as sales tax. I am very upset that initially i was told they would cover all issues concerning my vehicle and was later denied. I expended money on a rental car and also had to pay for all work myself.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of the money that I expended to have my car repaired, including rental car costs, parts and labor.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 8, 2013, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint. I would like to respond in the following manner: On April 13, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 175,046 miles on the odometer. On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Limited Service Contract (6 Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on May 6, 2013 (the attached “Service Contract”).

On August 22, 2013 at 11:54 a.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the customer was experiencing issues with the brakes. A CARS’ service representative advised the customer that under the customer’s service contract general maintenance for brakes, diagnostics, and alignment are not covered pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract.

On October 4, 2013 at 1:20 p.m., we received a telephone call from the customer advising us that the customer was experiencing issues with the engine. A CARS’ service representative advised the customer of the customer’s service coverage pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. We also advised the customer of the rental coverage under the customer’s service contract. We also emailed a copy of the customer’s service contract to the customer for review.

On October 30, 2013 at 3:30 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical failures, specifically the left front axle shaft assembly, and load detector. A CARS' service representative then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On that same day, CARS telephoned the repair facility for information to move forward with the claim; however, the repair facility informed us that the vehicle had been removed from the repair facility. We explained that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract the vehicle must be at the repair facility for a claim to be opened and processed. The repair facility advised that they would telephone the customer and advise them to return their vehicle to the repair facility.

On November 5, 2013 at 1:25 p.m., we received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically the left front axle shaft assembly, load detector, and fuse block. 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 as follows: We could supply the left front axle for $57.07. Mitchell’s OnDemand stated that the repair should take 1.3 hours to complete and the customer’s service contract pays up to $60.00 per hour. Therefore, total labor was $78.00. The claim was also subject to a $100.00 deductible. The total value of the claim was $35.07, once the deductible was applied. We explained that we could ship the part as stated above; however, no labor was allotted due to the deductible or we would pay $35.07 towards the repair of the customer’s choice. We then asked the repair facility to get back us with the customer’s decision.

On November 5, 2013 at 9:40 a.m., we received a telephone from the customer advising of the mechanical issues with the vehicle. During that telephone call, CARS’ service representative went over the customer’s coverage and our claim procedures. The service representative advised that the deductible is not included in the money allowance towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle. In addition, the service representative went over the rental reimbursement in detail.

On November 6, 2013 at 8:50 a.m., we contacted the repair facility to inquiry if the customer had made a decision on having the part shipped or taking the cash allowance. The repair facility advised us that the customer decided not to use their service contract and that the customer would pay for the claim since we were only authorizing $35.00 for the money allowance towards the repair.

By the customer’s signature on the customer’s Value Limited Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that the customer read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The customer’s service contract clearly states under terms and conditions at Paragraph 3(f): 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 also to be used to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously stated. The customer had the choice to have our replacement part shipped to the repair facility or take the cash allowance for the repair of the vehicle. It was the customer’s choice not to utilize her service contract by either having CARS ship the part or the customer taking the allowance towards the repair of the vehicle.

In addition, the deductible is clearly stated in the service contract at Paragraph 2(j): “C.A.R.S. will arrange for payment of the amount of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract less a one hundred $100.00 dollar deductible per claim. Pursuant to the service contract all claims are subject to a $100.00 deductible.

Please be advised in the customer’s complaint, the customer stated that we did not cover sales tax. The service contract clearly states at Paragraph 1(s): “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Taxes and repair facility charges.” CARS is clearly not responsible for sales tax pursuant to the terms and conditions of the service contract.

Also, the rental benefits of the customer’s service contract clearly 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.”

Since the customer’s repair should have only taken 1.3 hours to complete; the customer is not entitled to any rental benefits.

In addition the customer’s service contract clearly states: “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT at 2(m): 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.” Pursuant to the customer’s service contract, CARS was not responsible for any additional charges other than the claim allowance as explained above.

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.

We would also like to point out here that in addition to the customer’s acknowledgment that the customer had read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of the service contract, the customer also had the service contract coverage, including rental benefits, thoroughly explained by a CARS’ service representative. The customer was aware of the coverage that the service contract provided.

Accordingly, CARS stands behind its original decision and is unable to offer any further assistance with the November 5, 2013 claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. We believe that we have fulfilled all our obligations to the customer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract. The customer’s service contract expired on November 6, 2013; therefore, no longer has 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.

 

11/27/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a used car in June 2010. At that time I was offered the opportunity to purchase an extended 4 year warranty for $1500. I paid cash for the car and the warranty on that day. The warranty I purchased covers the engine and transmission. Every since I purchased that car and the warranty, my car has not been a reliable car. It has had over 6 different engines and has been in a mechanic shop. The car has been broken down longer than it has been driven.I have put more money into this car and I havent even driven the car much because of its problems. Recently, C.A.R.S Protection Plus sent my mechanic an engine to be installed in my car. The engine was a faulty leaky engine that smoked and leaked, and the check engine light stayed on. Now Im left with a car that is still in the shop and my mechanic cannot move forward because the warranty guys wants me (the customer) to pay over $1500 for the break down of the engine.All I know is that i have stage 3 breast cancer and i just recently went through 2 lumpectomies and now a mastectomy.I doing chemo treatments and Im not able to get back and forth to any doctor appointments because I have no car or no one on my side to protect me, (the consumer) I have spent well over $20,000 on this car and I have only driven it a total of 6 months out of 4 years. The rest of the time its been either broken down down on the side of the road or somewhere in a shop collecting dust. I have lost 2 jobs and losts of money trying to keep this car running. Now it looks like Im gonna lose my battle with cancer because of the stress and worry about getting to my treatments and not having a reliable car and warranty which I thought I paid for.

Desired Settlement: Since I am in a dyer situation, I would like to either get a refund of my $1500 I paid for the warranty or I would like to get a replacement engine that is not faulty to be put in my car. I just want to be able to get to my treatments without breaking down on the side of the road. And for once, I would like to have a reliable car to get me there.

Business Response:

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 20, 2013, 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 June 11, 2010 and on the date of purchase the vehicle registered 118,810 miles on the odometer. On that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service contract (48 Months/Unlimited Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s service contract on June 14, 2010 (See attached Service Contract). According to our records, the customer’s vehicle has been driven 65,385 miles.

Please be advised that since the inception of the customer’s service contract, twelve (12) claims were opened by repair facilities on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. Of those twelve (12) claims, CARS authorized, seven (7) claims for payment by CARS; however, three (3) of those authorized claims were not paid because the repair facilities chosen by the customer failed to provide CARS with the final invoice evidencing that the repairs were completed. One (1) of the claims authorized but not paid was for an engine repair; however, CARS has no evidence that an engine was replaced in the customer’s vehicle at that time because we never received the final repair invoice evidencing that the repairs were completed. After 180 days, the claims were closed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the customer’s service contract, which clearly states that authorization numbers are valid for only 180 days.

The other claims not authorized by CARS were for non-covered components, not listed for coverage under the customer’s service contract; therefore, those repairs were the sole responsibility of the customer. To date, CARS has paid the total of $2,691.68 in claims towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle over the last 31/2 years.

When the November 12, 2013 claim was called in, the repair facility advised that the customer’s vehicle registered 184,195 miles on the odometer and that there were issues with the engine. Our claims procedures were clearly reviewed with the repair facility, which required proper teardown to the point of component failure to determine the exact cause of failure and extent of damage to the vehicle. Our records also reveal that since the previous April 5, 2013 claim was opened, authorized and paid for by CARS, the vehicle was driven an additional 8,246 miles.

The customer states in her complaint that the repair facility she chose to repair her vehicle is charging her over $1,500.00 for the teardown. If the customer is unable to pay this amount for teardown, she should move her vehicle to another repair facility which is more affordable.

The customer also states in her complaint that she rarely drove the vehicle; however, as you can see from the above information, there have been 65,385 miles driven on the vehicle since the date of vehicle purchase, which calculates to over 18,000 miles driven per year.

Additionally, as stated above, CARS has paid $2,691.68 in claims towards the repair of the customer’s vehicle. Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS will pay claims up to the vehicle purchase price. Here, the customer paid $3,995.00 for the vehicle. Accordingly, the customer has $1,303.32 available for assistance towards the repair of her vehicle or the expiration of June 14, 2014, whichever occurs first.

I would also like to point out that when the August 8, 2012 claim was called in by a repair facility on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, CARS determined that an independent inspection was necessary. The independent inspector found that the customer continued to drive the vehicle in an overheat condition, which caused additional damage to the vehicle. In that claim, CARS only authorized for the repair of the radiator and labor time. All repairs caused by the continued operation of the vehicle were the sole responsibility of the customer.

Furthermore, the customer states that she would like a refund of her service contract in the amount of $1,500.00. Please be advised that our service contracts are sold wholesale; therefore, what the customer paid for the service contract is not what CARS received for the service contract. Here, CARS did not receive $1,500.00 for the customer’s service contract and pursuant to the customer’s service contract, since claims have been paid in the amount of $2,691.68 for repair of the customer’s vehicle; the customer is not entitled to any refund.

As you can see from the above information, CARS