ComplaintsforECP Incorporated

• Initial Complaint

  04/19/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I Purchased protection product and associated coverage against damage in 2019 at *************************** now ***************. On 04/17/24 I filled an interior and exterior claim for covered damage as shown in attachments. Almost immediately company rejected both claims citing inaccurate reasons to deny the claim. After reviewing the policy with a senior underwriter I believe all claims should be covered and *******. is behaving in a predatory manner and rejecting valid claims and has a proven track record of they bad faith contracts and coverage offferings. Coverage is sold as bumper-to bumper interior and exterior surface coverage, but then they sneakily sneak in exclusions and self-dealing language and only cover a few surface types.

  

  Business response

  04/22/2024

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumers concerns.
  
  I would note at the outset that ECP does not sell coverage.  ECP manufactures appearance protection products that are designed and scientifically tested to protect the treated exterior and interior surfaces of a motor vehicle against certain specified environmental damages.  These products are sold at retail by motor vehicle dealerships as professionally-applied products.  Consumers are provided a warranty that backs the performance of the products and provides certain specified remedies in the event that the products fail to perform as guaranteed.  In keeping with state and federal law, the warranties cover only those damages that the products are known to prevent, and only on surfaces actually treated with the products.
  
  This consumer does hold an ECP product warranty and filed a claim on or about April 17, 2024 for damage to the paint of his vehicle, as well as damage to the center console of the vehicles interior. Upon review of his claim, ECP found the following:
  
  Paint:   This consumers warranty covers the following paint damages:  weather induced fading, weather induced chalking, weather induced loss of gloss, acid rain, bird waste, tree sap, insect damage (including love bugs), suns UV rays, hard water spots, de-icing agents/road salt, ocean spray, brake dust, rail dust, and paint overspray.  It excludes the following damages, in pertinent part:  paint delamination, peeling, scratches, bubbling, cracking, or flaking.  The exclusions exist because the chemical application cannot prevent these damages.  In this instance, the damage to the consumers paint was clearly scratching, peeling, and flaking.  We denied this claim on the basis that the damage is excluded.
  
  Interior:  This consumers warranty covers the following damages on treated surfaces:  fast food, beverage stains, juice boxes, bleaches, dyes, inks, fading, discoloration, cracking of the dash, suns UV rays, mold, mildew, chewing gum, crayons, lipstick, makeup, blood & bodily fluids (including those caused by pets), rips, and tears less than six (6) inches long, and punctures and ***** up to one (1) inch in diameter.  The consumer provided a photo that showed some kind of localized crackling of a spot on the center console of the vehicle.  The hard plastic center console is not a treated surface, as the product is not designed to protect that kind of material.  We therefore denied the claim on the basis that we cannot guarantee the performance of the protection product on a surface to which the product was never applied.
  
  We regret that this consumer is dissatisfied with the outcome of this claim, and we understand his frustration.  However, we are obligated by the insurer who backs our obligations under these warranties to adjudicate claims in accordance with the warranty terms.  As these damages are not covered, we are regrettably unable to approve these ineligible claims for payment.
  
  ECP again appreciates the opportunity to answer this consumers concerns.    

  Customer response

  04/22/2024

   
  Complaint: 21596864
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  Multiple experts at the dealership  have claimed that paint damage was due to either pine sap or bird p*** both of which are covered as indicated by their response yet they refuse to honor the claim. Additionally in regards to the interior damage, That damage is on the console, which is part of the interior. ECPs marketing states that they provide interior interior protection. They do not exclude the console in their coverage nor do they define what interior is therefore coverage for the console should be included. 
  ECP is a predatory company that offers a product that doesnt provide coverage and they deny any claims that they can for any possible reason that they can without proper due diligence. 
  I will be looking to move forward and enact a class action lawsuit based on the bad faith contract and marketing provided by ECP and ****** finance.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *******************

  

  Business response

  04/23/2024

  Regarding the claimed damage to the paint, the warranty expressly excludes paint delamination, peeling, scratches, bubbling, cracking, or flaking.  In reviewing the claim, our experienced claims adjudication staff did not reach the conclusion that this damage was caused by bird waste or tree sap.  Even if that were the case, the damage would be so severe that one could conclude only that those materials were left in place for longer than the 60 days in which a consumer must make his claim after the occurrence of covered damage.

  Regarding the interior claim, the warranty expressly applies only to "treated surfaces."  The hard plastic of the center console is not a treated surface, as the product applied to portions of the interior is not designed to protect this particular surface.  

  ECP prides itself on the prompt adjudication and payment of valid claims, and it pays thousands of claims annually.  We regret that this one is not covered, and that we are unable to be of further assistance in this case. 

  We thank the BBB again for the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  Customer response

  04/23/2024

   
  Complaint: 21596864
  
  I am rejecting this response because: ECP refuses to honor the contract and cover damages caused by bird p*** or sap. Now they are stating a different reason for denial. ECP is a predatory company that looks to take advantage of consumers through false advertising, deceitful sales tactics, and fine print policy. ECP denies legitimate claims any way possible as can be seen through there communications here. They can deny claims without any accountability, which is why I am have escalated to BBB. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *******************

• Initial Complaint

  03/16/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased *** Ceramic Coating Plus Protection for my car which developed spotting on the hood, front bumper and fenders. The coating disintegrated and the paint was affected and became unsightly. When I pursued a remedy through the warranty I was initially denied with a boilerplate denial letter. After months of angst *******. requested I obtain an estimate from the Motoworld Lexus Dealer which was prepared on 10/05/23 and sent to ECP in the amount of $1,659.37. ECP notified me they had an agreement with Motoworld to remedy the problem for $330.90 which upon inquiry with the Dealer they did not. ECP sent an inadequate payment of $330.90 based on their own determination to Motoworld on 01/17/2024 which has not been cashed as the car cannot be repaired for this amount per Dealer Quote. Further details are provided in attachments. Thank You,*********,*******************************

  

  Business response

  03/19/2024

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  This consumer did file her initial claim regarding this damage on September 19, 2023.  We agree that the claim could have been handled better at the outset, and consumer has a right to be upset about the initial handling of the claim.  ECP apologizes for this consumer's early experience with this claim, which did not meet our usual standards for claim handling.

  Ultimately, we approved a third party independent inspection of the claimed damage, for which we paid, and which was completed on or about 12/28/23.  The third party independent inspector concluded that the damage was caused by water spotting and could be resolved via professional detailing, and did not require a repainting of the affected surfaces.  We approved the claim for professional detailing on 1/16/24 and sent a check to the repair facility to cover the cost of the detailing effort.  We will also provide the materials to the shop needed to re-apply the protection product to the repaired surfaces once the repairs are completed.
  
  We encourage this consumer to return to the Motorworld location to obtain the professional detailing required to effectuate the repair under this warranty.

  We regret that this consumer has had a suboptimal experience with this claim and trust that this resolution will be satisfactory.

   

  Customer response

  03/19/2024

   
  Complaint: 21442947
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  **************** has provided the estimate to complete the needed repairs in a professional manner that they can stand behind.  
  Sincerely,
  
  *******************************

  

  Business response

  03/19/2024

  In any kind of situation where a third-party payor is paying for body work on automobiles, it is generally the case that the shop will propose a solution to the consumer's problem that addresses the issue in a way that is not the most cost-effective approach.  The third party payor -- in this case, ECP - will then use claims adjustment tools and software that is standard to the industry to identify less-costly methods to effectuate the repair in a way that meets industry standards for repair quality and effectiveness.  

  Our analysis of the damage claimed in this case, as well as the analysis of the third party independent inspection company that evaluated this consumer's vehicle, is that the surface water spotting present on the vehicle's paint can be removed satisfactorily via professional detailing.  We have, therefore, paid the claim with that approach in mind.  We would encourage the consumer to reach out to ************;******* at Motorworld, as she is the person there who has knowledge of the agreed-upon quote.  Motorworld already has the claim payment in hand and can proceed as the consumer wishes.

  Customer response

  03/20/2024

   
  Complaint: 21442947
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  There is nobody at Motorworld who agreed to do the repair on my car for the amount you sent ******.  ***************************** does not work for Motorworld.  
  Sincerely,
  
  *******************************

  

  Business response

  03/22/2024

  Our claims staff will reach out to Motorworld and make arrangements for the work at the agreed-upon price.  We will be in touch with this consumer regarding these arrangements.

  Customer response

  03/27/2024

   
  Complaint: 21442947
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  EPC has been telling me the same thing for six months and nothing is agreed with Motorworld for ****** and nothing to fix the failure of product on their part gets resolved.  They promise and I hear nothing.  Until I hear from Motorworld that they agree to complete and repair my vehicle I will not accept their word. All I get is a run around for months now.  
  Sincerely,
  
  *******************************

• Initial Complaint

  03/13/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  I paid $1500 for a product that protects the interior and exterior of my car. The coverage explicitly confirms that I should be covered for a claim I submitted and they denied the claim by falsely quoting their coverage. They are a scam company that takes money and doesnt offer the help that is paid for.

  

  Business response

  03/18/2024

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  ************** purchased our appearance protection products as professionally-applied products at retail from ******************* ****** on February 27, 2024.  On February 28, 2024, ************** filed a claim with ECP, complaining about the quality of the application performed by the retailer from whom he purchased the products.

  As this consumer's complaint relates to an application issue rather than a claim against the product warranty, we asked this consumer to return to the dealership that sold the product to address his concerns regarding the quality of the application with the dealer.  In response, this BBB complaint was filed against ECP.

  We understand and acknowledge this consumer's concerns.  However, ECP is the product manufacturer.  It has no control over the application methods used by retailers that sell its products.  We would continue to encourage this consumer to return to his dealer to address his concerns over the quality of the workmanship associated with the product application directly with the retailer that performed the application.

  ECP again restates its appreciation for the opportunity to respond to this complaint.

  Customer response

  03/18/2024

   
  Complaint: 21430211
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  The dealer is going to have an actual professional install the product again. However, I have email confirmation that ECP has not covered the fading spot on the dash as their coverage so claims to cover. They have contradicted this by stating fading is not covered when their policy explicitly states it is covered. There is no where in writing that this fading coverage does not apply to the dash as they have falsely stated. I am thoroughly displeased in the claims process and product i bought and they have now made all future issues more of an issue as I dont feel protected nor do I feel that Ive gotten what I paid for.
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************

  

  Business response

  03/18/2024

  ECP is in receipt of this consumer's concerns.  

  The consumer's claim was filed with 24 hours of the application of the product to the vehicle.  To the extent that there was any damage to the dash that would be covered under this warranty, it was either pre-existing or arose as a result of the application process.  Neither scenario is covered under the warranty, which expressly excludes pre-existing conditions because the product is not designed to reverse damage that exists at the time the product is applied.

  We have not **denied** the consumer's claim.  We have asked the consumer to return to the selling dealer to have his concerns about the workmanship of the application process addressed.  He has indicated that this is being done.

  ECP regrets that this consumer encountered difficulty with the application process, and trusts that the retailer will work with him to make it right.

  Customer response

  03/20/2024

   
  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

  12/27/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased a 5th wheel in 2019 and had their product put on to protect the paint and decals against fading and damage from such things as the sun. The sun damaged one of the decals so I filed a claim in accordance to the product that was placed. I first noticed the damage in Sept.2023 and filed a claim on Oct 11 2023. The claim was denied because the decal is damaged, due to the sun. I spoke to a supervisor who said the fine print says it doesnt cover sun damage, only other environmental factors and would not listen to me explain the problem. They charge thousands of dollars for their product, which I happily paid for the protection of the decals and paint on my 5th wheel. But when the product did not protect like they said it would, they just automatically denied a warranty claim filed.. By reading other complaints, looks like they have a problem with not complying with their own warranties. They refused to accept the explanation from the bodyshop used by their request stating the damage was caused by the sun. No uploaded documents as they already have everything including all the emails between the claims agent, repair shop and myself.

  

  Business response

  01/03/2024

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  ECP manufactures appearance protection chemicals that are sold as professionally-applied products to consumers at retail by RV dealers.  ECP issues a warranty to consumers to back the performance of the products and to provide certain remedies in the event that those products fail to perform as warrantied.

  ************** purchased products that were applied to his fifth-wheel trailer, and holds an ECP warranty that does provide certain limited protections for the decals that are typically present on recreational vehicles.  The warranty also requires a consumer to present his claim within 90 days of the date upon which claimed damage first arises, so that ECP may arrange for repairs before damage is allowed to progress.  The warranty also excludes certain age-related failures of the decals, such as cracking and delaminating.

  ECP received a claim from ************** for cracking and peeling damage to the decal of his covered fifth-wheel trailer.  Upon review, ECP finds that the damage to the decal has been present for well more than 90 days, and that a reasonably diligent owner would have detected that damage long ago.  We therefore find that the damage was not reported within the 90 days required by the warranty.  Additionally, this kind of damage is expressly excluded in the warranty.

  ECP appreciates this consumer's frustration.  We regret that we are unable to approve this claim for the reasons described in this response, and that we are unable to be of further assistance to ************** in this case.

  Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  Customer response

  01/04/2024

   
  Complaint: 21061843
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  When I spoke with the claims agent, she first said the claim was denied because of collision damage, of which was on the estimate from the bodyshop ********************************  There was some damage, well below the decal that was damage not related to the decal I wanted the bodyshop to fix while they had the camper.  That estimate was also attached to the estimate sent for the warranty repair.  Trying to be as open with the *** as possible.  Both myself and ******* from Campingworld said the damage being repaired was not anyplace close to the decal that faded and cracked and had nothing to do with the cause of the Decals need for replacement.  The claims agent then said she was denying it due to the time.  I sent her a picture from September (when I noticed the decal was starting to fade) and explained that the trailer sits at ***** feet in the mountains of ******** and that from the time the damage was noticed to the time I submitted the claim it had accelerated.  This was confirmed when I spoke with the bodyshop professional, he said that the season change is what caused the rapid change in the decals destruction. I requested a supervisor contact me regarding her decision. 

  On 12/26/23 I received a phone call from the supervisor who said she was also denying the claim.  I tried to explain to her that from the time I noticed the damage to the time I reported it was less that the required 60 days and that because of the season changes in ******** the already sun damaged decal accelerated the damage and this information was confirmed by the bodyshop.All she would tell me is she only sees 1 picture, (the one attached to the claim). I told her that their claim program would only let me attach one picture and that I had emailed the agent other pictures. All she would tell me was she did not receive any other pictures and said the damage from the picture was too much and it did not appear to be from acid rain or bird droppings,  Again I tried to tell her from the time I noted the damage was less than the 60 days and I sent her pictures of the meta (date of the picture) when I saw the damage that also showed the damage was not as bad as the October claims picture she said she did not have that picture and was still denying the claim.  Im sure they have a recording of the conversation and I will admit the conversation was heated, she refused any additional information to support the claim and when asked to contact ******* from the bodyshop, she refused. 

  It should also be noted I first noticed the damage on September 19, 2023 (emailed photo to claims agent) when I went to our property for the weekend.  The claim was made October 11, 2023.  The claim agent told me I had a week to find a place to repair the damage.  I explained to her that the ****** area was limited on locations that can deal with this type of vehicle (5th wheel camper) and asked if she had a list of places to use.  She responded by email saying she did not have a list but I should contact camping world and see if they do these types of repairs,  That day I drove to Campingworld and asked.  They did have a collision center at another location (the only one in the Denver ***** area).  The next day, I went to that location and they told me I needed an appointment for an estimate and the soonest appointment was November 14, 23.  I emailed the claims agent and they said that was ok.  On November 14, the estimate was started but I did not get the estimate from Campingworld for three weeks, December 8th. I asked him to send the estimate to ***** (claims Agent) and he told me on December 11th.

  My complaint to the BBB is that where this company may have a product they say protects agains sun damage and a warranty that supports that damage, they do not honor the warranty on their product.  I read the "small print" on the purchase warranty and said the provisions and exclusions.  My claim is well within the time frame listed in their warranty and the damage to the decal, is within the weather caused fading, cracking and damage caused by the sun/weather/conditions their product was sold to protect against.  The fading / damage to the decals  can only be fixed by replacement and because of the other damage repair I asked them to do at the same time (to keep my repairs and down time to a minimum) I told them I would pay for the removal of the decals and only require the warranty to pay for the damaged replacements actually saving the company money.  The bodyshop rep said that was reasonable as I thought it would be. 

  Ive attached the email string from this business and the camping world rep along with the contract from my purchase of the protection warranty.

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************

  

  Business response

  01/08/2024

  Our National Claims Manager will be reaching out to this consumer shortly to discuss a mutually agreeable resolution to his concerns.  

  Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

• Initial Complaint

  11/27/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased the ****** warranty on 12/19/2019 for my Escalade from ********************* Cadillac in ***********, ****. In October 2023 I filed a claim that was denied. My complaint is the coating that was applied to my vehicle did not perform as intended and is misleading. Secondly, the warranty is written very subjectively in the favor of ****** and misleads the customer.

  

  Business response

  11/28/2023

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumers concerns.
  
  This consumer holds a warranty that guarantees the performance of products applied to the exterior and interior surfaces of the vehicle.  Germane to this complaint is the product that is applied to the paint.  The warranty backing that product covers fading damage caused by the suns UV rays.  It does, however, exclude coverage for scratches, cracking, and paint delamination, as the product cannot prevent those kinds of damages.  The warranty also includes a clear requirement that the consumer file his or her claim within 60 days of the occurrence of covered damage to ensure that repairs can be completed before damage progresses from covered damage to more severe damage that would not be covered.
  
  This consumer filed a claim with ECP on 10/16/23.   On 10/30/23, a third party independent inspector paid for by ECP was dispatched to evaluate the claimed damage.  The inspector reported to ECP that the damage was cracking/crazing and scratches/Cracks in top coat.  In light of these findings, ECP communicated its denial of this claim to the consumer on 11/7/23, both on the basis that the damage is not covered (and is, indeed, expressly excluded) and on the basis that the damage is much older than the 60 days allowed by the warranty.
  
  ECP believes that its denial of the warranty claim in this case is proper.  We are, unfortunately, unable to assist this consumer further with this specific claim.  

  Customer response

  11/29/2023

   
  Complaint: 20921775
  
  I am rejecting this response because: EPCINC is not taking in consideration the cause of cracking/crazing in top coat. The cause was the coating did not protect the vehicle from **/Environment which is covered by the warranty. With the topcoat being damage from the ** and Environment enable the cracking/crazing.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  

  Business response

  11/30/2023

  ECP stands by its denial of this claim.  The damage is old and should have been reported within the 60-day timeframe specified in the warranty.  It has been allowed to progress to non-covered damage.  We regret that we are unable to be of further assistance.

  Customer response

  12/01/2023

   
  Complaint: 20921775
  
  I am rejecting this response because: EPCINC has claimed the cracking/crazing happened past the last 60 days. This is a subjective statement without any scientific proof. Secondly, with this new claim from EPCINC are they conceding that the coating they applied failed to protect the vehicles paint against UV/Environment conditions as I stated in the first response which is the cause of the cracking/crazing?
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

• Initial Complaint

  11/23/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Purchased the extended protection plan for the exterior of my RV at time of purchase. Damage occurred to the exterior. I took my RV to the dealership. They filed the claim and awaited approval to do the repair work. Between all the back and forth and paperwork the whole process took over a year. We then found out we were suppose to be filling the claim with a different insurance provider. Once we filed a claim with "ECP" insurance carrier they denied my claim saying it has been over a year since the damage occurred. There is paperwork documentation on when this whole process started and "ECP" is claiming we waited to long to file the claim. Repair cost should be covered under the protection plan and are looking at $5000-$8000 to complete the repairs.

  

  Business response

  11/28/2023

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  On August 21, 2023, **************** filed a claim for fading on his recreational vehicle.  This is a form of damage against which our products offer protection, and his warranty does cover this damage.  However, to ensure that damage does not greatly worsen, our warranties include a clearly-stated requirement that the warranty claim be filed within 60 days of the occurrence of covered damage.  In this instance, the consumer told us that the damage was first identified on May 1, 2020 - more than three years prior to the filing of the claim.  

  The procedure for filing a claim is very clearly spelled out in the warranty held by the consumer, and we have several easy methods by which a consumer can make a claim.  We cannot, unfortunately, control the fact that this consumer chose instead to attempt to file a claim through his selling dealer, who reportedly made the claim with a different company and allowed years to elapse between the occurrence of the covered damage and the filing of this claim with ECP.

  The insurer that underwrites ECP's obligations under our warranties contractually requires us to adjudicate claims in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranties.

  The warranty remains in force and the consumer is free to make claims for other covered damage during the balance of the warranty term.  We would encourage the consumer to make any future claims timely, using the procedure spelled out in the warranty, to avoid this circumstance in the future.

  We regret that we are unable to be of further assistance to this consumer.  

• Initial Complaint

  11/18/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  ******* has wrongly denied a legitimate claim for paint fading on the exterior of my Corvette. Their products failed to protect it from UV damage as claimed and have not honored the warranty for over a month now. They have denied the claim twice without ever viewing the car in person.******* have acted in bad faith, stated untruths using false terminologies such as delamination, cracking & "scratches" that doesnt apply to my paint. They have attempted to place blame on GM falsely calming "manufacturer defect." All in an attempt to not honor their rightful liability per their Five Diamond Finish Appearance Protection warranty. ******* do not respond to emails for more than a week at a time and have not returned any calls despite leaving multiple voicemails. Three independent body shops and a 3rd party Appraiser have all concluded the paint is "faded" from unprotected UV sun exposure. ******* warranty reads as [their product will] "protect your paint against: The Sun's Ultra-****** Rays causing Fading, Chalking, and Loss of Gloss." Every exterior panel on my car facing up (hood, bumpers, roof, doors, fenders and hatch) are ruined from fading, chalking, and loss of gloss. Despite having the repair quote for weeks and the appraiser confirming fading, they have not honored the warranty. The ******* product applied to my car did not work, they have conducted their claims process in bad faith, with poor communication, stated untruths and did not honor their warranty.

  

  Business response

  11/21/2023

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  ECP recently dispatched an independent inspector to view the consumer's vehicle.  We are reviewing the results of that inspection and will be in touch with the consumer shortly with next steps.  This claim is not closed, nor has a final decision been reached.  We look forward to working with this consumer to resolve this claim in a mutually beneficial way.

  Customer response

  11/24/2023

   
  Complaint: 20889594
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The amount ******* is offering is substantially lower than the actual cost to repair the car per the body shop quote provided to them. Their offer is based on ******* 1 (a software that attempts to estimate labor and materials) but the information provided by the software is explicitly expressed as being for informational purposes only and does not necessarily represent the actual cost for repairs. To date, ******* has not worked with the body shop or myself in an attempt resolve the substantial cost difference. My car currently remains damaged by their product and still no results after filing a claim with them over 1.5 months ago. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************

  

  Business response

  11/28/2023

  ECP uses the same software that collision insurers use to develop estimates of the reasonable cost of repairs.  Additionally, the insurer that backs ECP's warranty obligations evaluated this claim and authorized this amount as the commercially reasonable cost of repairs in this instance.  The consumer in this case is welcome to find a shop that is willing to make the repairs for a commercially reasonable amount, or may alternatively choose to have the repairs completed at a shop of his choice, paying the difference between the commercially reasonable amount offered by us and whatever amount his shop is charging for these repairs.

  Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

  Customer response

  11/28/2023

   
  Complaint: 20889594
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Both commonly used automotive repair estimate software (******* 1 & Alldata) will yield different estimate costs depending on what is input and selected. It is not definitive. ******* has not attempted to work with the body shop to adjust the difference in cost and has not provided me with contact information for a local body shop that will do the repairs for the low amount they are offering. In their own words, they recommend that I pay the difference, which is almost half of the repair cost. If ******* is confident that the amount they are offering is suitable, then they should have no problem working out the price with the body shop. The warranty states "Should the factory-painted surface of the Covered Vehicle, treated with Five Diamond Finish, become damaged by Sun UV rays causing fading, chalking or loss of gloss, during the term of your warranty, We (EPC **** will pay for the repair of the damaged surfaces." I am only asking that they pay for the repair per the warranty. It does not say that I too have to pay for the repair. EPC *** is welcome to work out the price with the body shop. I asked that they do that over a week ago and never heard back from them.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************

• Initial Complaint

  11/14/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Purchased boat from Bass Pro Shop and bought a seat protection warranty from ***. The application was applied 1/14/2022. The warranty was good for 5 years. The seats have black specks and streaks with enough coverage I filed a claim for repair. We tried using the method cleaning suggested by ***. I sent to *** via email pictures of the seats. Via email with no other contact, *** asked me what I thought the streaks and specks were. I responded back saying I didn't know what caused them and made a few suggestions to what they might be but twice said I was unsure. The customer service rep took one of my suggestions (bird waste) to deny the claim. I emailed back that again I was unsure and wished someone to look at the seats. She denied it again. I asked that the case be elevated to management to which she never did. I was advised by the rep if I had ripped the seats or been careless enough to allow body fluids or blood on the seats that was covered but not bird waste. I continued to advise that was speculation on my part as I am not a lab and didn't know what it was. I have heard nothing further. This is my third purchase of a boat but the first of purchasing a warranty. I usually shy away from them because they look for a way not to cover. Now in just 18 months I have a boat with stained seats. It appears the *** application is a inferior product that the company does not stand behind. The stains, steaks and spots are embedded in the gel application and probably will not come out. Warranty number JPUPRM ********

  

  Business response

  11/17/2023

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  Our claims department will be reaching out to this consumer to arrange for additional efforts to clean the seats on this consumer's boat.  This contact will occur in the coming few days.

  Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

  Customer response

  11/22/2023

   
  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

  10/30/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased my 2018 **** Explorer about a year ago from ****. At the time I purchased the *** total care package to cover the exterior paint/rust and interior. I filed a claim on 10/19/2023 because my hood is bubbling and the paint is damaged. I got an email today from them saying they are denying my claim. I paid for this because they told me that everything was covered and now its not all of a sudden? doesn't make any sense.

  

  Business response

  11/01/2023

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumers concerns.
  
  This consumer holds a product warranty issued by ECP on appearance protection products he purchased at ****************** in March of 2022.  The warranty does include coverage for corrosion damage to surfaces and panels treated with the corrosion protection product.  It does, however, expressly exclude damage due to defective design, materials, or workmanship in the manufacture of the Vehicle, as documented in Vehicle manufacturer bulletins or recall notices.  This is because the protection products cannot prevent damage that arises as a result of faulty underlying design by the manufacturer of the vehicle.
  
  In the case of this consumers vehicle, ***** the vehicle manufacturer, issued service bulletin 20-2233 on July 10, 2020, which describes corrosion damage to **** vehicles with aluminum body panels with model years from 2000-2020 as manufacturer defects and provides a remedy to consumers for the repair of that damage. 
  
  We recommend that this consumer approach his dealer with this ***************** Bulletin and obtain repairs directly from the manufacturer for this defect. 
  
  We regret that we are unable to be of further assistance with this claim.  Please advise with any additional questions you may have.

• Initial Complaint

  10/12/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I have a warranty I purchased from the car dealership where I bought my car for interior protection. My seats had stains, so I decided to have them cleaned and sealed like I did 4 years prior, but instead of cleaning them, they "dyed" them. Within months my seats started to peel. They are telling me it's impossible for their product to peel, and it may not be the product itself, but the process in which it was applied. Regardless, they are telling me peeling isn't covered in my warranty and that the peeling is the leather, not the product. So, basically, they ruined my seats, are telling me it's impossible to peel, yet they are and it's not a coincidence.

  

  Business response

  10/17/2023

  ECP appreciates the opportunity to respond to this consumer's concerns.

  This consumer purchased a 2016 ****** Highlander on or about March 5, 2019.  In conjunction with that purchase, the consumer purchased professionally-applied interior protection products manufactured by ECP.  Those products were accompanied by a warranty that guaranteed that the products would prevent certain specified damages to the treated seats, and provided the consumer with certain repair remedies in the event that the product failed to perform as guaranteed, as well as free re-application of the protection product to surfaces repaired under the warranty.  In the case of this consumer, the remedy for covered damages is limited to repair and not replacement under the terms of the warranty.  Peeling of the seat surfaces is also not covered, as the product is unable to prevent that kind of damage from occurring. 

  In April of 2023, the consumer made a claim against her warranty with ECP for dye transfer to the front leather seats of her vehicle.  ECP dispatched an independent third party interior repair expert to the consumer's location.  That repair technician re-dyed the seats to remove the color transfer, which is the industry-standard approach for damage of this type.  ECP paid for this repair, and for the re-application of protection product to the seats.

  In September of 2023, the consumer reached out to us with a concern about peeling / separation of the top layer of the leather on her seats.  We explained that neither the re-dyeing process nor the product application process - both of which have been completed successfully on thousands of vehicles -- could cause this kind of failure, which appears to be a manufacturing defect.  Further, the warranty expressly excludes coverage for peeling.  Therefore, there is no remedy we can provide for this particular kind of seat surface failure.

  We regret that this consumer is dissatisfied with that explanation, and understand her frustration.  Unfortunately, we are unable to be of further assistance in this matter.  

  Thank you again for the opportunity to address this consumer's concerns.

  Customer response

  10/17/2023

   
  Complaint: 20728827
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  The previous vehicle I owned was also a ****** I had for 19 years and my seats never did this. My husband had his ***** for 15 years, they never did this. My father had ****** and ******** each for nearly 20 years, always leather seats, they never did this. The vehicle that they worked on is only 7 years old, and we take very good care of our vehicles as you can see as we keep our vehicles for a long time. The only difference between those vehicles and this was the service provided by ECP. 

  No further action needs to be taken by ECP as I've lodged a complaint with the dealership, and the manager is also unhappy with the lack of accountability by ECP and has taken it upon himself to order the part to have my seat reupholstered.

  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

*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. ↩