Complaints
This profile includes complaints for EasyCare's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see
Customer Complaints Summary
- 160 total complaints in the last 3 years.
- 78 complaints closed in the last 12 months.
If you've experienced an issue
Submit a ComplaintThe complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.
Initial Complaint
Date:11/29/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Motor blew in my vehicle in September the company is refusing anything that was sent to them for my warranty. Will not pay a single ***** for anything. Ive called multiple times on my claim and get told different things each time.
Business Response
Date: 12/28/2022
December 28, 2022
Torothy Shumate
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGT85DD970
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18476713
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by ***********************, and the vehicle service contract (***)referenced above.
Please first understand that the reimbursement requests initiated by Ms. ******* repair facility during the claim to which she refers, have not been declined. Instead, authorization for engine repairs covered per the terms and conditions of the *** has been issued in the amount of $4,350.04, after the ***s $100.00 per-visit deductible.
Although we are unable to identify or corroborate examples of getting told different things each time,the engine claim to which **************** refers was initially delayed because she was unable to provide verifiable proofs of engine oil and filter maintenance as performed in accordance with her vehicle manufacturers published schedule for such maintenance, as stipulated in section C of the *** captioned YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES, and as subject to section E (12) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED which specifically disclaims Any costs if verifiable receipts as required in section C. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES are not furnished on request.
In an attempt to overcome this non-compliance,and although there was no obligation to do so, the Administrator offered *************** the option of directing her chosen repair facility to perform the minimum level of diagnosis and/or teardown to expose the engines internal condition,and to determine the cause of the symptoms they reported. The Administrator proposed this alternate path with the understanding that if the engines internal components were clean,sludge/varnish-free, with no indication of a lack of lubrication, maintenance,or a condition otherwise excluded by the ***, and if eligible defects in material or workmanship to covered components were demonstrated by her chosen repair facility; the Administrator would resume the claim evaluation on the condition that if the *** could not assist, she would be responsible for all costs.
**************** then chose to have her vehicle transported to the service department of her Selling Dealer, No. 1 ******* in **********, ************, where her authorized diagnosis as outlined above, was performed. Thankfully, the result of that diagnosis and the condition of the engines internal components was sufficient to justify coverage in accordance with the *** terms, as also outlined above.
Under these circumstances, we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the ***,in every respect. We are grateful for the privilege of being Ms. ******* *** Administrator, we are pleased to have been able to provide coverage in this instance, and our understanding is that Ms. ******* complaint has been resolved.
If **************** has any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, she is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOCustomer Answer
Date: 12/28/2022
Thank you for getting back to me, but unfortunately up until I made this claim they were willing to do anything for my vehicle which I was actually told my a women who was very rude to me on the phone that nothing would be done simply because I could not provide the proper information of my oil changes. I had to continue to call the warranty company to get any updates as they did not reach out to me ever they reached out to the dealership or the shop in which my car was located at. There are many reviews on this easy care company that are all very bad. I hope someone takes action in this issue.Initial Complaint
Date:11/14/2022
Type:Status:ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I purchased a 2017 ************* 20D SUV October 7, 2021. I've had two oil changes since, no problems with the car until October 17, 2022. My engine went out at 90, 000 miles. I got it towed to the dealership for diagnostic. They required a teardown of the engine, Easy Care Warranty didn't cover this. They also made me pay a portion of the tow, I thought that was included. After paying for teardown, dealership told me the Turbo Charger seal failed and leaked oil into Catalytic Converter, Intake, and Exhaust, Intercooler, and needs a replacement battery. My bill came up to $10,631.83. Easy Care didn't help with anything, these are literally engine problems that should be covered. I regret buying this car, now I'm in debt with a car that doesn't work. I wasn't at fault in this situation, they basically sold me a lemon and warranty doesn't care. I literally give them money every month for no reason. I'm stuck with a car note, insurance, and a vehicle that doesn't work, no rental or anything. I'm in a limbo, this company is a scam and should be shut down immediately, You are not getting another dime from me. Attached is a copy of my coverage, I clearly see (Intake and Exhaust Manifold; seals and gaskets; all lubricated engine parts) I want you to fix my car, that's what I'm paying you for.Business Response
Date: 11/16/2022
November 16, 2022
Torothy Shumate
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: 00V7046395
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: *************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18401089
Dear *****************************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by *************************, and the vehicle service contract (***)referenced above.
As a preliminary matter, please understand that while the coverage available under Ms. ******* *** is extensive,it is neither an insurance policy nor is it an unlimited warranty, and it does not promise to assist with the repair of everything that could possibly go wrong with her ********************* cure all symptoms, diagnose the ********************* or keep the vehicle in an arbitrarily determined satisfactory operational condition.Instead, the *** is a simple service contract agreement between its Issuing Provider and the *** purchaser, under which the Issuing Provider has agreed to repair, replace or reimburse [****************] for the reasonable cost to repair or replace any of the parts covered, if required due to an OPERATIONAL FAILURE. The *** defines an OPERATIONAL FAILURE as the inability of any covered part(s) to perform the function(s) for which it was designed due to defects in material or workmanship. This coverage is in effect for a specific period of time and vehicle mileage and as **************** depicted in the *** page she included with her complaint, only the specific vehicle components identified under the heading ****) (2) COVERAGE LEVELS and within items a-e of the POWERTRAIN COVERAGEshe chose for her ***, are eligible for repair or replacement in the event of an OPERATIONAL FAILURE subject of course, to the ***s stated terms and conditions, limitations, and exclusions. Correspondingly, any component which is not specifically listed within component groups a-e, is a non-covered part.
Unfortunately, under the terms and conditions of the ***, the recently reported claim to which **************** refers was not eligible for coverage due to the following:
1) As noted above, the *** extends coverage only to the repair or replacement of the specific components and parts listed within items a-e of the POWERTRAIN COVERAGE chosen, in the event one of those specific covered parts suffers an OPERATIONAL FAILURE solely due to defects in material or workmanship, and subject to the ***s terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions.
2) Rather than a defect in material or workmanship of a covered part, diagnosis performed with Ms. ******* authorization by the professionals at **** European in ************, ********** (CE), concluded that the cause for the symptoms she reported to them was that a turbocharger seal had failed, leading to oil contamination of the engines exhaust and intake system(s).
3) The causal part diagnosed and identified by CE the turbocharger is not specifically listed within items a-e of the ***s POWERTRAIN COVERAGE.
Regrettably therefore, the turbocharger is a non-covered part; and neither it nor any of its **************(s), gasket(s), or other elements are eligible for repair coverage under the ***.
4) Section VI (D) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED specifically excludes Repairs to any non-covered parts.
5) Section VI (A) (16) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED specifically excludes the repair Of a covered part damaged by a non-covered part;
6) Section III of the *** captioned YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES stipulates YOU (the *** purchaser) must give YOUR authorization to the repair facility for teardown to diagnose a problem.
7) Section VI (E) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED specifically excludes The cost of teardown, disassembly or assembly if coverage cannot be applied.
8) Section VI (I) (2) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED specifically excludes batteries
Upon receipt of your notification,our office placed a courtesy call to CE to inquire as to the status of Ms.******* ********************* and/or to see whether they may have any new, additional, or supplementary information to provide following further diagnosis they may have chosen to perform with Ms. ******* authorization, pursuant to section III of the *** captioned YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. We were informed by CE that they had no new or additional information, and that they were certain the turbocharger was the sole cause of the symptoms *************** reported to them; but that the unrepaired vehicle had also been removed by **************** and was no longer at their facility.
Under these circumstances, we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the ***. Obviously, we very much sympathize with the frustration **************** has expressed; and we truly regret that the *** has been unable to apply coverage for the repair of the non-covered turbocharger diagnosed by EC, or the sub-damage and contamination the failure of that non-covered part may have subsequently led to which the *** also specifically excludes. Please understand that while we will always do whatever is possible and permitted under the *** to achieve the repair coverage our customers expect and deserve; we are obligated to abide by the terms and conditions of all the ***s we administer. In doing so, we are unable to invent scenarios or diagnoses that do not exist, nor may we waive the ***s terms in pursuit of that which it explicitly disclaims, of course.
We are grateful for the privilege of being Ms. ******* *** Administrator and would be happy to re-evaluate any new or additional information EC or another reputable licensed repair facility of her choosing may be able to provide; notwithstanding ECs repeated confirmation of their diagnosis of a non-covered part, and our current understanding that a different or contradictory diagnosis does not exist. Beyond that our records indicate the *** will remain in effect until October 7, 2023, or a total vehicle odometer reading of ****** miles, whichever first occurs, and we look forward to the opportunity of providing future coverage for eligible claims submitted in accordance with the ***s provisions, during the remainder of its effective term.
If **************** has any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, she may contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOCustomer Answer
Date: 11/16/2022
Why would I leave it in the shop, I don't have money for that, that's why I pay you guys for nothing. Useless like I said
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.
Sincerely,
*************************Initial Complaint
Date:11/03/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
They unlawfully and contrary to their contract languages denied my claim for repair of a warranty covered part. It would seem they are in the business of only trying to deny claims. My claim number is CL ********. I provided invoices for all required services and receipt for an aftermarket air filter take. The service rep at the dealership provided a statement that the aftermarket air intake had nothing to do with my warranty claim.Business Response
Date: 11/17/2022
November 17, 2022
Torothy Shumate
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Limited Warranty Contract Number:PWR1Y009E6
Limited Warranty Contract Holder:*************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18353900
Dear *****************************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter in response to the complaint submitted by *************************, and the POWERCARE Limited Warranty Contract (****) provided at no cost to ************** by his Issuing Dealer, ***********************, **** (BF), referenced above.
As a preliminary matter, please first understand that our office was appointed by BF to perform the sole function of administering the **** and any claim(s) which may be submitted pursuant to its terms. In that capacity, our office is not responsible to fulfill any obligation to repair or replace components or provide benefits of any kind. In addition, NO PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS.
Unfortunately, according to all available information, documentation, and the terms, conditions, limitations,and exclusions of the ****, the recent claim to which ************** refers has been determined ineligible for coverage due to the following:
1) To qualify for repair or replacement under the ****, proof of timely performance of all scheduled maintenance as recommended by **************** vehicle manufacturer, and/or as may otherwise be specified in Section B of the ****, entitled YOUR RESPONSIBILTIES, must be kept by him and furnished to the Administrator upon request.
2) A diligent review of the documentation submitted by or on behalf of ************** to support performance of the manufacturer recommended and/or **** required maintenance, reveals omissions and/or excesses beyond the ****-established 30-day and/or 1,500-mile grace ****** for such maintenance.
3) Among those services missing or late include engine oil and filter changes due every six months or ***** miles, engine air filter replacements due at each ******-mile interval during Mr. ****** ownership, etc.
4) Section D (9) of the **** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED, specifically excludes Any costs if verifiable receipts as required in section B. YOUR RESPONSIBILTIES are not furnished on request.
With respect to **************** contention that he provided invoices for all required services and receipt for an aftermarket air filter intake and/or that *********** rep at the dealership provided a statement that the aftermarket air intake had nothing to do with my warranty claim, we ask the Bureau and its interested readers to consider the following as well:
5) Coverage eligibility under the **** is not determined by opinions regarding whether a particular example of non-compliance with section B of the **** caused, influenced, was related to, had, or did not have a direct effect on the component(s) diagnosed as having suffered a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE.
6) Rather, as noted above, the **** is a simple agreement which conditions ANY of its coverage upon timely, 100% compliance with ALL the scheduled maintenance as recommended by **************** vehicle manufacturer, and/or as may otherwise be specified in Section B of the ****, entitled YOUR RESPONSIBILTIES.
7) The **** explicitly stipulates that ************** must provide proof that all recommended services have been completedincluding verifiable receipts showing date and mileage of the VEHICLE at the time of such service.
8) Although there is also NO intent and there has been NO attempt on the part of the Administrator to prevent ANY **** holder from performing the scheduled maintenance upon which the PLWCs coverage eligibility depends, on their own vehicle, themselves; the PLWCs requirement for verifiable receipts which document and validate that service cannot be waived, dismissed, ignored, imagined into non-existence, or be replaced with verbal statements or a self-authored log that cannot be corroborated via corresponding receipts itemizing the purchase of materials matching the log.
9) For example, the Administrator received a self-authored invoice from **************, accompanied by one receipt from OReillys Auto Parts, ostensibly designed to address and overcome a gap of approximately 226 days and nearly ****** miles between other, verifiable examples of engine oil and filter maintenance already received, and which transpired during **************** vehicle ownership.
10) However, while the date and odometer reading indicated on that invoice (or what was effectively a log entry) seemed plausible; the accompanying receipt indicated the purchase of two oil filters (only one of which was listed as correct for **************** vehicle), and two 5-quart containers of engine oil (the engine in **************** vehicle has a 6.0-quart capacity when performed with an oil filter change), approximately 8 months AFTER the purported service.
11) With respect to the aftermarket air filter to which ************** refers, the Administrator also does NOT assume the position that he is prohibited from installing such a filter on his vehicle but neither does such a choice eliminate his responsibility to service and/or replace the filtration element as his vehicle manufacturer (or the aftermarket filter manufacturer) specifies.
12) Indeed, the manufacturer of the S&B cold air intake kit which ************** advises he purchased for his vehicle (and presumably installed) on/about March 18, 2019 (at an approximate odometer reading of ****** +/- miles), plainly instruct with respect to the optional dry or cleanable oil filter elements one may choose for their kit(s):
Both filters offer similar performance characteristics, so the decision comes down to would you prefer to throw away the filter or clean it.13) In other words, the aftermarket S&B cold air intake kit is most certainly not a set it and forget it installation, requiring no future maintenance and no element replacement or cleaning.
14) Moreover, given the obvious design and purpose of any internal combustion engines air filter, and its primary function to trap debris and contaminants, the air filter elements ******ic replacement (or cleaning, if the filter is of the re-usable variety, in the professional method, utilizing the specific cleaning agents and oil S&B offers for that purpose), is imperative.
15) In fact, S&B specifies that their filter elements should be serviced (replaced or cleaned) at least every ****** miles, a schedule even more stringent than Fords requirement that the engine air filter be replaced every ****** miles.
16) Given that the reported odometer reading of **************** vehicle at the time of the recent claim submission was ****** miles, approximately ****** miles would appear to have elapsed since the gentleman chose to replace his factory air filter with the aftermarket version contained in the S&B cold air intake kit.
17) Accordingly, and even granting the benefit of any doubt in **************** favor by assuming Fords maintenance specification vs. that of S&B; verifiable, historical documentation of at least two such air filter element replacements, or two specific performances of the procedure outlined in this S&B instruction video https://youtu.be/7z-Hlsb32O4 , leaving no gap between any or all of them in excess of ****** miles, supported and/or accompanied by their concurrent, verifiable receipts reflecting purchase of the S&B Cleaning & Oil Kit products, would also be necessary in order for the Administrator to consider resumption of the claims evaluation.
Regrettably, unless verifiable receipts documenting compliance with section B of the **** are forthcoming,examples of non-compliance such as those noted above would invalidate the ****,and consequently, any reimbursement for current or future repair(s) under its terms. Once again, we would like to make it abundantly clear that the claim has NOT been denied on the basis of ************* having chosen to install an aftermarket air filter.
We are grateful for the privilege of being **************** **** Administrator, and regret that coverage could not be applied in this instance. Should ************** have any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, he is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at: **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
**** AdministratorInitial Complaint
Date:10/27/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I have a warranty for my car with this company. My car needed a motor. I submitted all my maintenance receipts. They are still not honoring the warranty. They say that the maintenance schedules don't add up to the guidelines of the manufacturer. I have a report from **** (the manufacturer) about a common problem they are seeing with this model of car (2018 **** Echo Sport). the total of my car is about $6900; **** is willing to pay $4000 for the repair.Business Response
Date: 11/17/2022
November 17, 2022
***************************;
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Limited Warranty Contract Number:PWR1FAC46E
Limited Warranty Contract Holder:******************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18324591
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter in response to the complaint submitted by ***************************, and the POWERCARE Limited Warranty Contract (****) provided at no cost to ****************** by her Issuing Dealer, ***********************, **** (BF),referenced above.
As a preliminary matter, please understand that our office was appointed by BF to perform the sole function of administering the **** and any claim(s) which may be submitted pursuant to its terms. In that capacity, our office has not provided a warranty for (******************) car, and it is not responsible to fulfill any obligation to repair or replace components or provide benefits of any kind. In addition, NO PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS.
Unfortunately, according to all available information, documentation, and the terms, conditions, limitations,and exclusions of the ****, the recent claim to which ****************** refers has been determined ineligible for coverage due to the following:
1) To qualify for repairs or replacement under the ****, proof of timely performance of all scheduled maintenance as recommended by ****************** vehicle manufacturer, and/or as may otherwise be specified in Section B of the ****, entitled YOUR RESPONSIBILTIES, must be kept by her and furnished to the Administrator upon request.
2) A diligent review of the documentation submitted by or on ****************** behalf to support performance of the manufacturer recommended and/or **** required maintenance, reveals omission(s) and/or excess(es) beyond the ****-established grace ****** for such maintenance intervals.
3) Among those missing or late which also exceed the PLWCs 30 day/1,500-mile grace ******, include: engine oil and filter replacement(s) performed beyond the ****-specified 6 month/7,500-mile interval.
4) Section D (9) of the **** entitled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, specifically excludes Any costs if verifiable receipts as required in section B. YOUR RESPONSIBILTIES are not furnished on request.
Regrettably, unless verifiable receipts documenting compliance with section B of the **** are forthcoming,examples of non-compliance such as that noted above would invalidate the ****,and consequently, any reimbursement for current or future repair(s) under its terms.
We are grateful for the privilege of being ****************** **** Administrator, and regret that coverage could not be applied in this instance. Should ****************** have any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, she is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at: **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
**** AdministratorInitial Complaint
Date:10/22/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Complainant is the original and present OWNER of a 2016 ******* Tucson, VIN____GU151207.On August 24, ********************************************************************************** issued a work order Invoice E21508 which included an item: Radio cuts in and out. The problem was demonstrated to & acknowledged by a *** Service Advisor prior to leaving the vehicle for repair. Owner was advised that a new head unit had to be ordered. *** submitted a claim under OWNER's EasyCare extended warranty contract 1D055HK, expiration date 2/15/2026. Said warranty covers ************************ CD Player and Speakers. Following radio ************ ********* of the deductible by OWNER, the radio problem persisted, sound intermittently cutting in & out; again demonstrated to the same Service Advisor, via voicemail recording. OWNER again brought the vehicle to ***. *** advised that an electronic amplifier also had to be replaced. *** again submitted a claim to EasyCare. The same Service Advisor told OWNER that EasyCare then sent its representative to *** regarding the problem, but then EasyCare informed *** that EasyCare would not pay for the amplifier because during a brief time of visit to *** their representative did not personally witness this intermittent problem despite *** Advisor's witness that the problem persists.EasyCare is in BREACH OF CONTRACT with the ****** OWNER was required to pay $161.34, *** Invoice C23291, 10/20/22, to *** for the required new amplifier due to EasyCare's breach. Moreover, EasyCare is acting in BAD FAITH by now claiming that they have no duty to honor their contract if their particular representative does not personally witness a problem. OWNER & *** are in full compliance with said contract. OWNER demands a refund in the amount of $161.34.Business Response
Date: 11/17/2022
November 17, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGT1D055HK
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: **********************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18299384
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request,we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by *******************************, a claim submitted on ************************ behalf by ********* Company in ************, ******* (KBC), and the vehicle service contract (***) referenced above.
As a preliminary matter, please understand that ******************-Valets *** is neither an insurance policy nor is it a warranty, and it does not promise to assist with the correction of everything that could possibly go wrong with *********************** vehicle, cure all symptoms, or comply with every demand for reimbursement made upon it particularly when no defect in material or workmanship to a covered part has been confirmed.
In the case of the recent claim to which ******************-Valet refers, and under the terms and conditions of the ***,the claim was not eligible for coverage due to the following:
1) The *** extends coverage for the repair or replacement of all eligible components and parts that sustain a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, solely due to defect(s) in material or workmanship...
2) The *** further clarifies its definition of a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE as follows: The manufacturer has established tolerances for the express purpose of defining FAILURE and serviceability. When specifications exceed these manufacturers tolerances a FAILURE will be considered to have occurred.
3) In this instance, KBC advised that the same intermittent loss of audio they believed would be corrected with the replacement of the vehicles factory radio assembly a replacement the *** had authorized and reimbursed in the amount of $1,790.00 just days before was still present.
4) KBC theorized that the vehicles factory amplifier may have suffered an internal short, and they requested the ***s required prior repair authorization once again this time to replace the amplifier at an additional cost of $1,352.23.
5) However, upon independent mechanical inspection all aspects of the vehicles audio system functioned normally, with no hint of defect, failure, or objectionable symptom; and no specification exceeding the manufacturers tolerances which resulted from a defect in material or workmanship of any covered part was demonstrated.
6) We understand that ******************-Valet would prefer the Administrator not consider the fact that the amplifier exhibited no failure symptoms or variance from manufacturer specification during the recent independent inspection (which KBC affirmed as well), or that the complaint submitted to the BBB and her statements to the Administrator on September 23, 2022, both indicate the radio unit the *** had previously authorized and which had just been replaced to address the same symptom, had not successfully done so.
7) Of course, it must also be recognized that man-made mechanical, electrical, and/or electronic devices such as the radio unit or amplifier in ******************-Valets vehicle, are incapable of repairing themselves.In other words, if a component truly has suffered a defect in material or workmanship, there is no known reason that duplication and/or demonstration of the characteristics corroborating such a defect, should be absent.
8) Moreover, the *** is unfortunately not an instrument designed to blindly approve the replacement of components on the basis of unverified verbal demand alone; and even though the Administrator is surely not in the habit of retracting the prior authorization its issued all available information dictated the Administrator exhaust due diligence in this regard, to avoid a second potentially expensive, yet unsuccessful component replacement.
9) Section D (1) of the *** stipulates: Upon OUR request, [******************-Valet] must allow the SERVICE AGREEMENT COMPANY to inspect [her] VEHICLE to gather necessary information regarding any claim.
10) Having done as the *** stipulates but finding no defects in materials or workmanship to the amplifier or any other covered part to explain the reported audio symptoms (which were also not present) the foundational prerequisite and threshold for coverage under the ***, was not met.
11) We are uncertain if the supplemental documents provided by ************************ with her complaint, actually reflect replacement of her vehicles amplifier at a total net cost of $161.34 (in part because we are unable to detect an itemized charge associated with an amplifier), or whether that charge instead represents a diagnostic fee, an SPO (Special Part Order) deposit, or some combination; and we have attempted to reach KBC for clarification of that invoices charges several times, without success.
12) If the invoice does and is meant to reflect replacement of the amplifier without the ***s required prior authorization please note that section E (1) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED, specifically excludes coverage for the repair of any MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE When repairs are performed without prior authorization;
13) If the invoice does not and is not meant to reflect replacement of the amplifier, we welcome KBCs return contact when ******************-Valets vehicle is back in their possession, and when they are able to demonstrate a defect in material or workmanship to the amplifier or any other covered component.
14) Upon receipt of such notification and the knowledge that KBC is prepared to demonstrate a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, the Administrator will be pleased to resume the claim evaluation, re-assign an independent third-party inspector to verify KBCs updated diagnosis, and do everything possible to justify more coverage under the *** without violating the terms by which it, and ******************-Valet, are bound.
Under these circumstances we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the ***. We are grateful for the privilege of being ******************-Valets *** Administrator, and for the opportunity to have provided $4,796.68 in eligible repair or other benefits thus far during seven consecutive claims prior to the most recent example where no coverable event was demonstrated or verified to have occurred.
If ************************ has any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, she is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOCustomer Answer
Date: 11/18/2022
Complaint: 18299384
I am rejecting this response because: EasyCare is essentially denying the existance of intermittant problems; this is particularly disingenous in the case of an electrical fault in a moving vehicle subject to continual vibrations and repeated jarring of the faulty Audio-Visual system component and its wiring. Moreover, EasyCare is attempting to shift the responsibility for proper diagnosis and repairs implemented from ************ and its employees to complainant (documents already provided with this Complaint when carefully read clearly indicate the condition). EasyCare makes this argument only to avoid reimbursing complainant the amount complainant is out of pocket even though EasyCare admitted paying for the covered AV system in the first attempt at repair by Key (less the $50 deductible complainant also paid). The amplifier replaced later is part of the same AV system: AV unit, wiring, amplifier, speakers, failure in any one of which results in a problem, chronic or intermittant. EasyCare must reimburse complainant the $160.
************************************************-valetBusiness Response
Date: 11/22/2022
November 22, 2022
Customer Relations Representative
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGT1D055HK
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: **********************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18299384
Dear Customer Relations Representative,
Thank you for your email dated November 18, 2022, notifying us of the additional correspondence you have received from *************************-Valet. We have reviewed *****************-Valets comments, but we are unfortunately unable to discern any new,clarifying, responsive, or otherwise corrective information which would permit a change in the coverage decision previously issued and thoroughly explained in our respectful response, dated November 17, 2022.
With regard to the distasteful motives ************************ has chosen to project upon our compassionate response, we further respectfully direct any interested reader to that response once again; a response which we stand by in its entirety, without exception,and without further comment other than to observe that none of unpleasant characteristics alleged are even remotely present or suggested therein. We are compelled to stand by that response for many reasons, not the least of which are because it is true, because it is supported by independent verification, because it is consistent with the *** terms by which ************************ and the Administrator are bound, and because, as explicitly detailed throughout that response, there simply was no defect in material or workmanship to the amplifier present or demonstrated during the Administrators exhaustion of every provision permitted under the ***.
To further document the accuracy and rectitude of the Administrators position, attached to this response please also find a specimen copy of ************************* ***, and an image of the independent inspectors findings provided during the claim to which ************************ refers. You will note that KBCs representative,*********************, explicitly acknowledged that KBC was unable to duplicate *****************-Valets complaint, and that there was no part failure (NPF) present. To be sure, the Administrator is most certainly NOT denying the possibility of intermittent symptom(s), nor is it shifting the responsibility for proper diagnosis away from the only parties to whom the *** explicitly assigns those responsibilities; but it no more has the authority to repudiate the independent testimony of not only a third-party inspector but ********* Companys own representative, and invent an eligible defect in material or workmanship that DOES NOT exist, than it would to arbitrarily defy the demonstration and independent verification of one that DID exist.
The interested reader will also note the ***s admonition that NO PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS *** OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS.
Nevertheless, despite those realities and the apparent choice ******************-Valet has made to avoid the Administrators sincere attempt to work toward the additional coverage she seeks, we will again offer and re-state those potential paths to resolution once more, in full pursuit of additional coverage under the ***, and precisely as the Better Business Bureau intends when it suggests what steps can be taken by both parties to resolve this matter. To that end, we remind ******************-Valet of the following:
1) We are uncertain if the supplemental documents provided by ************************ with her complaint, actually reflect replacement of her vehicles amplifier at a total net cost of $161.34 (in part because we are unable to detect an itemized charge associated with an amplifier), or whether that charge instead represents a diagnostic fee, an SPO (Special Part Order) deposit, or some combination; and we have attempted to reach ********* Company in ************, ******* (KBC), for clarification of that invoices charges several times, without success.
May we ask ************************ to explicitly clarify the answers to these questions? Unhappily, the Administrator has once again attempted to reach her repair facility several more times, and has left several more messages for her service advisor to please explain the content and representative charges; but we still have not received any callback.
2) If the invoice does and is meant to reflect replacement of the amplifier without the ***s required prior authorization please note that section E (1) of the *** captioned WHAT IS NOT COVERED, specifically excludes coverage for the repair of any MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE When repairs are performed without prior authorization;
To address this contractual provision, may we again ask ******************-Valet to explicitly confirm whether her vehicles amplifier has in fact been replaced? If it has been replaced, does the expense of $161.34 represent all charges for all parts and all labor necessary to replace the amplifier, without exception? We hope you will excuse what may appear to the uninitiated as a nonsensical purpose in asking such a question. However, what would seem even more nonsensical and thereby deserving of reconciliation is the question: "If the current MSRP of the amplifier is $1,192.23, as KBC originally estimated how is it that the same amplifier could be replaced for $161.34? And, if $161.34 does not represent the total cost to replace the vehicles amplifier then precisely what DOES it represent?Exactly what parts and what labor is ************************ demanding compensation from the *** for? Is ************************ stating that her vehicles amplifier has been replaced, that the total incurred cost to replace the amplifier was $161.34, and that the amplifiers replacement has eliminated all the symptoms she advises were experienced before its replacement, intermittent or otherwise?
3) If the invoice does not and is not meant to reflect replacement of the vehicle's amplifier, we would of course welcome KBCs return contact when ******************-Valets vehicle is back in their possession, and when they are able to demonstrate a defect in material or workmanship to the amplifier or any other covered component.This is precisely the path to coverage permitted by ***; the same *** which has provided coverage for seven consecutive claims totaling $4,796.68 in eligible repair or other benefits thus far; and its the only instrument under which any current or future coverage may be applied.
4) Upon receipt of such notification and the knowledge that KBC is prepared to demonstrate a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, the Administrator will be pleased to resume the claim evaluation, re-assign an independent third-party inspector to verify KBCs updated diagnosis, and do everything possible to justify more coverage under the *** without violating the terms by which it, and ******************-Valet, are bound.
5) If ******************-Valet would be so kind as to provide the specific clarifications above, the Administrator will evaluate that input to see which may present the best opportunity to assist further, and/or to determine if there are even other examples of good faith or accommodation possible.
Beyond that, however, the *** simply does NOT promise to unconditionally reimburse out of pocket expenses based upon a mistaken supposition that previous reimbursements issued in accordance with the ***'s provisions during one or in this case seven prior claims; somehow license future reimbursements when the ***s conditions have NOT been met. Each claim is adjusted and administered on its own merit, no past claim dictates coverage or denial of a future claim based upon its existence alone.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOCustomer Answer
Date: 11/23/2022
Complaint: 18299384
I am rejecting this response because:
Once again EasyCare attempts to obfuscate the claim rather than admit its liability for a mere $161.**, for which Owner has submitted all the documentation in its possession. It asks for a demonstration of the problem when *** has already repaired the problem; how exactly is one supposed to do that? The invoices already submitted show that Key required a payment by the Owner of approximately 10% of the cost of the amplifier already replaced and working perfectly since the time of the last invoice which they required because EasyCare's rep did not witness the problem on their visit to Key (when Owner was not present). Not only did ***'s rep **** witness the problem at the time of the radio unit repair, when the problem reoccurred Owners left an electronic voice mail on his phone while the problem was reoccurring due to the faulty amplifier circuitry so that no claim could be made that "we could not reproduce the problem," the argument that EasyCare now is be relying upon. Owner will contact **** and ask him to respond to EasyCare's attempts, if any, to verify. Again, respectfully, EasyCare is denying coverage for a failed part unambiguously included in coverage. It is EasyCare that is acting in bad faith and casting aspersions back on the Owner and its Dealer rather than reimbursing Owner their due.
************************************************-valetInitial Complaint
Date:10/11/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Company simply do not answer the phone. I have called on several occasions only to listen to a recording for over 30 minutes, finally giving up.Business Response
Date: 11/07/2022
November 7, 2022
******* Barrett
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EGTBD5D204
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: ***********************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18199492
Dear ******************,
We are in receipt of your email dated October 12, 2022, notifying us of the complaint your office has received from *********************** in connection with his recent claim experience and inability to reach a customer service representative at our office. Please allow us to say that we greatly appreciate the time that **************** has taken to write and share his concerns,and to further state that we understand how frustrating an unsatisfactory customer experience can be. In this instance, and although we are uncertain of the specific date(s)/time(s) on or at which *************** initiated the unsuccessful attempts to reach the Administrator, we are terribly sorry that he was apparently unable to do so. Indeed, whether the examples he describes were the result of technical/electronic/equipment-related obstacles, were exacerbated by a wave of sheer but unforeseen call volume, or were due to other factors unknown; **************** experience does not reflect the high standards of quality service that we continually strive to provide for our vehicle service contract (VSC) holders every day.
With respect to the then ongoing claim which we understand was the primary purpose of **************** call(s), upon receipt of your email notice we contacted his chosen repair facility and presented authorization for the repair of eligible components that facility had demonstrated evidence of having suffered the VSCs requisite defect in material or workmanship. The facility advised they would be reviewing the authorization and claim status with ****************, and shortly thereafter a customer service representative from our office did reach out to the gentleman to explain the same information, and to clarify any of his remaining questions or concerns.
We very much appreciate the privilege of being **************** VSC Administrator, and we are pleased to have been able to provide $6,471.66 in repair benefits thus far during his VSC term. We hope that this recent atypical experience will not irretrievably tarnish **************** opinion of his VSC or its Administrator,and we look forward to the opportunity to apply future coverage in accordance with the VSCs provisions during the remainder of its effective period, which our records indicate will continue until December 19, 2023, or a total vehicle odometer reading of ******* miles, whichever first occurs.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCOInitial Complaint
Date:10/03/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I have a warranty with this company. I took my truck with the dealership and they found an issue with the transmission. GM sent a letter to the dealership and said the transmission should be replaced due to the issues with it. Easy Care told the dealership needs to tear down the transmission. If it's torn out and Easy Care doesn't cover it, I will have to pay for it. They've already been told it needs to be replaced. They have the letter from GM.Business Response
Date: 10/20/2022
October 20, 2022
***************************;
BBB of Metro Atlanta, ****** & NE *******
Vehicle Service Contract Number: EST2E9F113
Vehicle Service Contract Holder: *****************************
BBB Complaint Case #: 18159335
Dear ******************,
In accordance with your request, we ask that you accept this letter containing important information regarding the complaint submitted by *****************************, a recent claim submitted on his behalf by ********************************** County (BCSC), and the ******************** service contract (***) referenced above.
Unfortunately, under the terms and conditions of Mr. ********** ***, and at the time the gentleman filed his complaint with your office, the claim was determined ineligible due to the following:
1) The *** extends coverage for the repair or replacement of all eligible components and parts that sustain a MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, solely due to defect(s) in material or workmanship..., and which are not otherwise obstructed by an exclusion stipulated in section E, WHAT IS NOT COVERED.
2) The ***s definition of a MECHNICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE is clarified as follows: The manufacturer has established tolerances for the express purpose of defining FAILURE and serviceability. When specifications exceed those manufacturers tolerances a FAILURE will be considered to have occurred.
3) The *** further stipulates that ********************** must give [his] authorization to the repair facility for teardown to diagnose a problem.
4) In this instance, and as verified upon the first of two independent third-party mechanical inspections, although BCSC was able to duplicate several transmission related symptoms the true underlying cause for those symptoms, whether the cause represented a defect in material or workmanship to a covered part, and/or what would be required to remedy those symptoms, was undiagnosed and undetermined.
5) Accordingly, the Administrator asked BCSC to obtain Mr. ********** authorization for the minimum level of diagnosis and/or teardown required to determine the presence and extent of any MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN or FAILURE, and to notify us as soon as they were able so that we may resume the claim evaluation.
6) The Administrator never denied the claim, and it is unaware of a letter from GM which instructs a technician to replace a transmission assembly in the absence of performing the requisite diagnosis to determine why such a replacement would be necessary.
7) Upon receipt of your complaint notification, our office contacted BCSC to check on the status of their diagnosis of the reported symptoms. We were informed that ********************** had chosen to remove his unrepaired ******************** from their location, without authorizing the requisite diagnosis.
Nevertheless, we are pleased to report that ********************** subsequently returned his ******************** to BCSC and authorized the diagnosis of his transmission; whereupon BCSC reported their findings to the Administrator, and the second of two independent mechanical inspections was able to verify eligible defects in material or workmanship to several internal transmission components. The Administrator then promptly authorized replacement of the transmission in Mr.********** ******************** with a remanufactured assembly sourced by BCSC, and later added substitute transportation benefit coverage as well, to the limit of the ***s liability. Our understanding is that the repair of Mr. ********** ******************** is now underway, if it has not already been completed.
Under these circumstances, we believe the Administrator has acted properly and in full compliance with the ***. We are grateful for the privilege of being Mr. ********** *** Administrator and are confident his concerns have been resolved. According to our records,the *** will remain in full force and effect until January 11, ****, or a total ******************** odometer reading of ******* miles, whichever first occurs, and we look forward to the opportunity to provide future assistance during the remainder of the ***s active term. If ********************** has any additional questions regarding this claim disposition, he is welcome to contact our office directly by telephone at **************.
Sincerely,
Claims Department
Automobile Protection Corporation - APCO
BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.
When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.
BBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period, except for customer reviews. Customer reviews posted prior to July 5, 2024, will no longer be published when they reach three years from their submission date. Customer reviews posted on/after July 5, 2024, will be published indefinitely unless otherwise voluntarily retracted by the user who submitted the content, or BBB no longer believes the review is authentic. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. If you choose to do business with this company, please let them know that you checked their record with BBB.
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business. Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation. BBB charges a fee for BBB Accreditation. This fee supports BBB's efforts to fulfill its mission of advancing marketplace trust.