Complaints

The 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:06/05/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  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 am filing this complaint regarding Mechanical Breakdown Protection Inc. (MBPI) and their denial of my valid engine repair claim. I hold a Premier extended warranty contract through MBPI, which explicitly covers mechanical failures. My 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 with the 6.2L V8 engine was brought to a certified GMC dealership after I noticed abnormal oil consumption and performance issues. The dealership confirmed that the engine was consuming oil and recommended a teardown.
  
  After I paid out of pocket for the teardown, the technician found scoring in cylinder #7 and an oil control ring that was stuck and not expanding, which caused oil to pass into the combustion chamber and led to internal damage. This is a clear mechanical failure of a covered part.
  
  MBPI is denying the claim based on the inspector’s opinion that carbon buildup caused the piston ring to stick. However:
  • The technician noted normal levels of carbon, not excessive.
  • The ring was stuck and non-functional, meaning it failed to perform the function it was designed to do, which meets the policy’s definition of a mechanical breakdown.
  
  I was told MBPI would reconsider the claim if I provided more evidence, which I did. MBPI is now denying coverage based on a vague assumption that “carbon caused the failure,” even though they cannot prove this and the technician disputes that conclusion. They are interpreting the presence of carbon (which is normal in any used engine) as an automatic disqualifier, which is not what the contract says.
  
  I have fully maintained the vehicle, performed a fuel induction service 7,000 miles ago, and followed every request made by MBPI. I have been transparent, cooperative, and professional throughout this process.
  
  I am requesting that MBPI honor their contract and cover the engine repair as a mechanical failure, as supported by the dealership’s findings and their own policy language. If not, I respectfully request the BBB’s assistance in resolving this dispute.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/11/2025

  To whom it may concern,

  This is in response to the consumer’s complaint regarding the denial of a claim under the Lifetime Powertrain Limited Warranty (“Limited Warranty”) issued by the selling dealer in connection with the consumer’s purchase of a 2019 GMC Sierra K1500 AT4 (“Vehicle”) on or about February 19, 2024.  Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) is the administrator of the Limited Warranty and is responsible for adjudicating any claims in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Limited Warranty. 

  Under those terms and conditions, the Limited Warranty provides coverage for the breakage or total failure of a covered part which renders the covered part incapable of performing the function for which it was designed.  The Limited Warranty does not provide coverage for damage resulting from a non-covered part or for any of the items described under Exclusions from Coverage.  More specifically, under Exclusions from Coverage #11, the Limited Warranty does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon deposits, and under Exclusions from Coverage #21, the Limited Warranty does not provide coverage for the cost of diagnostic inspection, disassembly, and reassembly if the inspection determines that the failure was not a mechanical breakdown that is covered under the Limited Warranty. 
  

  In the complaint, the consumer acknowledges that the mechanical breakdown was caused by carbon deposits.  “The ring was stuck and non-functional, meaning it failed to perform the function it was designed to do, which meets the policy’s definition of a mechanical breakdown.”  Notably, the consumer fails to state why the oil control ring was stuck and non-functional.  In fact, it was stuck due to excessive carbon deposits which prevented the oil control ring from expanding and removing the oil from the cylinder walls.  This was documented by images obtained during a borescope inspection of cylinder #7 and by a third-party inspector examining the piston after it was removed from the engine. 
  As the Limited Warranty expressly excludes coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon buildup, MBPI has no choice but to deny the consumer’s claim. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/11/2025

  
  
  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I strongly disagree with MBPI’s denial and their interpretation of the Limited Warranty. Their response misrepresents both the technician’s findings and the policy terms. At no point did I “acknowledge that the mechanical breakdown was caused by carbon.” I consistently stated that the piston ring was stuck and non-functional — which is a mechanical failure.
  
  
  The certified GMC technician who disassembled the engine documented that the oil control ring was stuck and did not expand outward, resulting in oil blow-by and cylinder scoring. This is a classic example of a covered failure: a part that failed to perform the function for which it was designed. The ring gap was within spec (0.014”), which further supports that this was not a wear-and-tear issue.
  
  
  The technician specifically noted that carbon buildup was normal, not excessive. MBPI has offered no credible, technician-signed documentation confirming that excessive carbon was the definitive cause of the failure. They are making this claim based on third-party assumption, not certified diagnostics from the servicing dealership.
  
  
  Under the Limited Warranty, a part that is stuck and non-functional is a covered failure. Simply having carbon present does not automatically prove causation, especially when:
  
  
  The technician does not cite it as the cause
  The component is confirmed to be within manufacturer specs
  No alternate failure (e.g., driver neglect or improper service) was found
  
  
  
  
  MBPI is using boilerplate exclusions to avoid honoring a legitimate claim that was diagnosed professionally and handled according to their exact process — including teardown, photos, and documentation at my expense.
  
  
  After MBPI’s repeated delays and refusal to consider the technician’s direct findings, I paid out of pocket for the engine replacement. I am now requesting reimbursement for that repair.
  
  
  MBPI’s stance reflects a pattern of using vague exclusion language to deny claims based on interpretation, not fact. I’m asking BBB to help hold MBPI accountable to their own warranty language and the documented, mechanical failure of a covered component.
  
  
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  ****** ******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/17/2025

  To whom it may concern,

  As we have stated in our previous responses to this consumer’s
  complaint, Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) is merely the Administrator
  of the Limited Warranty and is required to adjudicate any claims in accordance
  with the terms and conditions of the Limited Warranty.  The Limited Warranty is between the selling
  dealer and the consumer.  If a consumer’s
  claim under the Limited Warranty is expressly excluded under the terms and conditions
  of the Limited Warranty, MBPI is required to deny the claim. 

  In response to the additional correspondence from the consumer,
  once again, the consumer provides no additional information that would indicate
  that the claim is covered under the terms and conditions of the Limited
  Warranty. 

  Contrary to the assertions made by the consumer, MBPI is not
  “ignoring the findings of the certified GMC dealership technician.”  In the consumer’s more recent correspondence,
  the consumer once again admits that the repair facility technician documented
  that the oil control ring had become stuck and was not expanding.  This can only occur due to
  carbon buildup, there is no other possible mechanism for this occurring.  The carbon buildup and stuck oil control ring
  have been documented in the photographs attached to our most recent response to
  this consumer’s complaint.

  Under the terms and conditions of the Limited Warranty, the
  Limited Warranty does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused
  by carbon deposits.  Accordingly, the
  consumer’s claim has been properly denied. 

  In the most recent correspondence, the consumer states that
  the repair technician performed a ring end gap test “confirming that the compression
  rings were within factory specifications.” 
  As we stated in our prior correspondence, the compression rings are not
  the same as an oil control ring.  The functionality
  of the compression rings has never been in question during the review of the
  consumer’s claim. 

  In conclusion, the Limited Warranty expressly excludes
  coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon deposits.  The consumer admits that repair technician determined
  that the mechanical breakdown was caused by the oil control ring becoming stuck
  due to carbon deposits.  These findings
  were confirmed by a third-party inspector during a physical inspection of the piston.  The photographs and documentation provided by
  the third-party inspector have been reviewed by MBPI’s ASE Certified Claims
  team and further reviewed by MBPI’s ASE Master Certified Claims Manager.  Accordingly, as the Administrator of the Limited
  Warranty, MBPI was required to deny the consumer’s claim.  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/18/2025

  
  
  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because MBPI’s latest statement contains a false and misleading claim. Specifically, they wrote: “The consumer admits that repair technician determined that the mechanical breakdown was caused by the oil control ring becoming stuck due to carbon deposits.”
  
  
  That is categorically untrue. I have never stated that the technician determined carbon buildup caused the failure — in fact, I’ve consistently said the opposite. If I agreed with that conclusion, there would be no dispute or complaint.
  
  
  I personally spoke with the service advisor at the certified GMC dealership that performed the teardown. He confirmed that no one at the dealership ever stated to MBPI that carbon buildup was the cause of failure. The technician only documented that the oil control ring was stuck — which, by MBPI’s own contract language, constitutes a mechanical breakdown of a covered component.
  
  
  MBPI continues to misrepresent the facts by relying on the opinion of a third-party inspector who reviewed the engine after the teardown, rather than the certified dealership technician who physically performed the inspection. The technician stated that carbon buildup was normal, not excessive.
  
  
  MBPI’s assertion that a stuck oil control ring can only be caused by carbon is mechanically inaccurate. Other well-documented causes include heat damage, lubrication failure, oil starvation, or manufacturing defects. MBPI has presented no mechanical testing or diagnostics to eliminate these causes or prove carbon was the sole reason for failure.
  
  
  I followed every required step, paid for a full teardown and engine replacement out of pocket, and submitted documentation in good faith. MBPI’s use of vague boilerplate exclusions and misstatements about the technician’s findings directly contradict the spirit and letter of their warranty agreement — and are exactly why I’m pursuing this complaint.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  ****** ******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/18/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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.

  We purchased an extended warranty with our 2020 Suburban when we bought it as a GM program car.
  An aluminum heater line to the rear heat has cracked leaking coolant.
  The warranty lists “hoses” as uncovered.
  This is an ALUMINUM line, but GM lists it with the heater hoses so they won’t cover it.
  $2100 to repair and no recourse.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/19/2025

  To whom it may concern,

  This is in response to the consumer’s complaint regarding
  the denial of a claim under the Premier Vehicle Service Contract (“Contract”)
  he purchased from *** ***** **** ****** on or about December 12, 2020.  A copy of the Contract has been attached to this response.  Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”)
  is the administrator of the Contract and is responsible for adjudicating any
  claims in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract. 

  Upon review of the consumer’s claim file, on or about May
  12, 2025, the consumer reported a claim under the Contract due to the vehicle
  overheating.  Upon examining the vehicle,
  the repair facility determined that the point of failure is a rubber heater
  hose (part number ********), not the aluminum line set referenced by the
  consumer in the complaint.  Under the terms
  and conditions of the Contract, the heater hose is expressly excluded from coverage
  (see Premier Coverage, Maintenance and Parts Excluded, #1).  Accordingly, the consumer’s claim was
  properly denied as the failed part is expressly excluded from coverage under
  the Contract.  

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/27/2025

  Good afternoon,

  This is in response to the further correspondence provided
  by the consumer on May 22, 2025. 

  MBPI’s prior denial was due to the information provided by
  the repair facility documenting the cause of failure to be a rubber heater hose,
  which is not covered under the Service Contract.  However, based upon the new information provided
  by the consumer, MBPI’s claims department has determined that the consumer’s claim
  is approved under the terms and conditions of the Service Contract.  

  Accordingly, MBPI’s claims department will be in touch with
  the consumer to process the approval and payment of the consumer’s claim.  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/03/2025

  
  
  Complaint: 23346959
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING EMAIL FROM MBP:

  "On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, 12:51 PM, **** ******** ******************************
  wrote:
  Hello, I sent a check reimbursement claim for this one to be sent
  out for the refrigerant line. 
  I have the parts and the labor per the invoice, all good
  there. 
  I cannot pay for shop supplies and shouldn't be any taxes per KS
  state as the contract is sold in Kansas. 
  The total/breakdown below
  
  705.58 parts
  266.40 evac/recharge
  769.78 labor
  ----
  1741.76 subtotal
  
  100.00 deductible
  1641.76 payable
  
  $1641.76 total payable by check, should arrive 5-7
  business days. 
  
  Let me know if you have any questions. 
  
  Thank you,
  
  **** ********
  Claims Adjuster
  Mechanical Breakdown Protection
  **************
  ************ ****

  MY RESPONSE:

  "On Saturday, May 31, 2025, 5:23 AM, ****************** ******************** wrote:
  Nico,
  Your
  explanation of sales tax seems odd… WE paid taxes to have the work performed…
  Sales Tax is not in the “Excluded” section of our contract… WE should be
  reimbursed in full.
  Also
  you are attempting to collect the $100 Deductible twice… this work was all
  performed at the same time at the same shop after the same tow fee as it was
  leaking coolant profusely from the aluminum line and we did not notice the
  water pump was leaking also… quit possibly from getting hot due to low coolant
  level.
  There
  is also a $185 tow bill (attached) that you should pay $80 of.
  $100
  Deductible was taken out of the water pump invoice already.
  So
  $2032.23 - $49.63 - $4.52 + $80 = $2058.08
  My
  math says we should be owed $2062.60 less tax (9.1%) on the $49.63 which
  would be $4.52 so a total of $2058.08"

  WE RECEIVED A CHECK FOR $1641.76 ON 6-2-25.

  WE ARE BEING CHEATED $416.32 PLUS I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE "SHOP SUPPLIES" ARE NOT REIMBURSIBLE SINCE THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE CONTRACT EXCLUSIONS CLAUSE.

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  *** ******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/30/2025

  Type:Customer Service Issues
  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.

  ****** ****** *** ***** *** * ****** ** ***** ************ ********************* ********25
  
  Better Business Bureau
  
  Subject: Complaint Against MBPI for Denied Extended Warranty Claim and Unprofessional Behavior
  
  I am writing to file a formal complaint against MBPI regarding their handling of my extended warranty claim for my 2019 Kia Sportage purchased from Youngblood, My experience with MBPI has been extremely frustrating and has resulted in both financial loss and significant inconvenience.
  
  On 03/18/25, my vehicle experienced a mechanical failure that should have been covered under the extended warranty. Kia provided all necessary documentation, including maintenance records and inspection reports. Instead of honoring the claim, MBPI denied it and required me to pay for multiple diagnostic tests (compression tests, leak tests, engine scope, and an engine teardown) that I believe should have been covered.
  
  Additionally, I was promised a ten - day rental car reimbursement. Due to MBPI’s delays, I have incurred rental expenses for over eighteen days. When I contacted MBPI to discuss these issues, I found their representatives to be extremely rude, and dismissive. Their short, unhelpful responses have left me with the impression that MBPI operates as a very dark company with little transparency or ethical accountability.
  
  Respectfully, request that the BBB investigate MBPI’s business practices and their failure to honor the warranty agreement as advertised. I’m seeking a full resolution of my claim or a complete refund of all premiums paid, along with compensation for the additional expenses I have incurred due to their delays and unprofessional behavior.
  
  Kia of Springfield will send copies of all relevant documents, including the extended warranty contract, maintenance records, inspection reports, and correspondence with MBPI. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your assistance in resolving my complaint.
  ****** ****** 

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/07/2025

  Good afternoon,

  This is in response to the Consumer’s complaint regarding
  the denial of a claim under the Premier Certified Pre-Owned Wrap Vehicle
  Service Contract she purchased from Youngblood Motors Liquidating on or about
  May 11, 2020 (“Service Contract”).  Mechanical
  Breakdown Protection, Inc. is the administrator of the Service Contract and is
  responsible with adjudicating any claims in accordance with the terms and
  conditions of the Service Contract. 

  On or about March 18, 2025, a claim was filed by the repair
  facility servicing the vehicle after the Consumer brought the vehicle in to
  diagnose a check engine light and misfire. 
  The repair facility reported that the piston rings had failed causing
  the spark plug to misfire.  In order to
  isolate the failure and reduce any possible teardown time, MBPI requested the
  repair facility perform additional testing. 

  On or about March 21, 2025, MBPI received borescope
  inspection images and test results from the repair facility.  The compression test results indicated a
  likely problem in cylinders #2 and #3, however the leak test results and borescope
  images were inconclusive. 

  In order to conclusively diagnose the cause of failure and
  determine if the cause of failure was covered under the Service Contract, the
  vehicle’s engine would need to be torn down to remove and examine the
  pistons.  However, since the Service Contract
  does not provide coverage for the expense of diagnostic inspection, disassembly,
  and reassembly if the inspection determines that the failure was not a mechanical
  breakdown covered under the terms and conditions of the Service Contract (see Exclusions from Coverage #21), and, based upon the nature of the mechanical
  breakdown MBPI suspected that the cause of the mechanical breakdown may be due
  to carbon building, which is not covered under the Service Contract (see Exclusions
  from Coverage #11), MBPI required the repair facility to obtain the Consumer’s
  authorization prior to performing any additional testing. 

  After obtaining the Consumer’s authorization and disassembling
  the engine, the repair facility provided MBPI with photographs of the pistons
  and oil control rings.  These photographs
  clearly show carbon buildup seized the oil control rings, which caused the mechanical
  breakdown.  I have attached these
  photographs to this response. 
  Additionally, I have attached a sample image of what the piston and oil
  control rings should look like without the carbon buildup seizing the oil
  control rings.

  As I described above, MBPI is the administrator of the
  Service Contract and is responsible for adjudicating claims in accordance with
  the terms and conditions of the Service Contract.  Under those terms and conditions, the Service
  Contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by
  carbon buildup.  Additionally, the Service
  Contract does not provide coverage for the expense of diagnostic inspection,
  disassembly, and reassembly if the inspection determines that the failure was
  not a mechanical breakdown covered under the Service Contract.  Here, upon inspection after the engine was
  disassembled, it is clear that the mechanical breakdown was caused by carbon
  buildup, and thus not covered under the Service Contract.  Additionally, as the cause of the mechanical breakdown
  is not covered under the Service Contract, the costs associated with the disassembly
  and reassembly of the vehicle’s engine are also not covered.  Accordingly, the Consumer’s claim was
  properly denied. 

  Regarding the Consumer’s claim for rental car reimbursement,
  the Service Contract provides a daily rental car allowance of $35 per day for
  up to five (5) calendar days, not to exceed $175.  However, that coverage is only available in
  the event there is a covered mechanical breakdown.  Since the Consumer’s claim was not covered
  under the terms and conditions of the Service Contract, the Consumer was not
  eligible for rental reimbursement. 

  Contrary to the claims made by the Consumer in the complaint,
  MBPI’s Claims Manager thoroughly explained the reason for the denial of the
  claim, including the denial of the rental reimbursement claim, on a lengthy
  phone call as well as provided copies of the images that I have attached to
  this Complaint via email. 
  In summary, the Service Contract does not provide coverage for
  any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon buildup or the expense of diagnostic
  inspection, disassembly, and reassembly if the inspection determines that the
  failure was not a  mechanical breakdown covered
  under the Service Contract.  Upon inspection
  after the vehicle’s engine was disassembled, it was determined that the
  mechanical breakdown was caused by carbon buildup.  Accordingly, the Consumer’s claim was
  denied.  As rental car reimbursement is
  only covered if the underlying mechanical breakdown is covered, the Consumer’s
  rental car reimbursement claim was also denied. 

  Attachment A – Service Contract
  Attachment B – Image of Consumer’s Piston
  Attachment C – Image of Piston without carbon buildup

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/21/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  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.

  12-19-2024 car had to be towed to Lewis dealership would not start.
  MBP spoke with ****** and approved for the main fuel pump to be replaced because of having low psi which meant it was failing, so the dealership did. Which led to the secondary fuel pump to be replaced because it was over reading which MBP approved also. Now they are saying that since the first approved fuel pump didn't fix the problem, they will not pay for it, even though it was bad.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/25/2025

  This is a dispute regarding the resolution of a
  claim.  The portion of the claim
  associated with the replacement of the primary fuel pump was denied due to the repair
  facility being unable to demonstrate any failure of the primary fuel pump upon
  inspection.  The consumer’s claim would
  more appropriately be addressed with the repair facility as their failure to
  correctly diagnose the cause of the mechanical breakdown has resulted in these costs
  being incurred. 
  
  On or about November 3, 2022, the consumer purchased a
  2017 Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat (“Vehicle”) from Olathe Ford.  In connection with the purchase of the
  Vehicle, the consumer also purchased a Premier Vehicle Service Contract (“Contract”)
  from Olathe Ford.  Mechanical Breakdown
  Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) is the Administrator of the Contract and is
  responsible for adjudicating claims in accordance with the terms and conditions
  of the Contract. 
  
  On or about December 27, 2024, Mechanical Breakdown
  Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) received a call from the repair facility servicing
  the vehicle.  The repair facility
  reported that the consumer had an issue with the vehicle not starting and the
  repair facility found the primary fuel pump had failed.  
  
  On or about January 2, 2025, the repair facility
  contacted MBPI and reported that the issue was still occurring and was now requesting
  the powertrain control module be replaced. 
  Under the terms and conditions of the Contract, the Contract does not provide
  coverage for the repair or replacement of any part while covered by any manufacturer’s
  warranty.  As the powertrain control
  module is covered under the manufacturer’s emissions warranty, this request was
  denied and MBPI directed the repair facility to open a claim with the manufacturer
  under the manufacturer’s emissions warranty. 
  
  On or about January 21, 2025, the repair facility contacted
  MBPI and reported that the powertrain control module was replaced but the issue
  was still occurring.  The repair facility
  had opened a case with the manufacturer, Stellantis, and were informed by
  Stellantis to replace the auxiliary fuel pump. 
  Since this was the third diagnosis for the same issue by this repair facility,
  MBPI elected to perform an in-person inspection of the Vehicle to identify the
  true cause of failure.  Additionally,
  MBPI authorized an additional four (4) days of rental coverage for the consumer. 
  
  During the inspection, the inspector verified the failure
  of the auxiliary fuel pump.  Additionally,
  since the initial replacement of the main fuel pump did not correct the issue
  and the repair facility was unable to demonstrate any failure of the original
  main fuel pump while the inspector was onsite, the inspector informed the
  repair facility that their initial diagnosis was incorrect.  While MBPI has authorized and paid the portion
  of the claim associated with the auxiliary fuel pump replacement, under the
  terms and conditions of the Contract, the Contract provides coverage for the
  parts and labor to repair or replace any parts listed in the contract, only if required
  due to a Mechanical Breakdown.  As the repair
  facility was unable to demonstrate any failure of the primary fuel pump that
  portion of the claim was denied since it was not required due to a Mechanical
  Breakdown.    
  
  As the cost of replacing the primary fuel pump is the result
  of the misdiagnosis by the repair facility, the consumer’s complaint would be
  more correctly addressed to the repair facility.  

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/03/2025

  Good afternoon,

  This is in response to the response provided by the Consumer on or about March 31, 2025. 

  The Consumer is correct that the fuel pump had been removed from the vehicle prior to the inspection.  However, it is still possible for the fuel pump to be tested by measuring the electrical resistance.  Had the fuel pump in fact failed, this would result in either high resistance or infinite resistance (indicating an open).  As we described in our initial response, during the inspection of the vehicle, the repair facility was unable to demonstrate that the main fuel pump had in fact failed. 

  Under the terms and conditions of the contract, the contract only provides coverage for the parts and labor necessary to repair or replace any parts listed in the contract, only if required due to a Mechanical Breakdown.  As the repair facility was unable to demonstrate any failure of the primary fuel pump, that portion of the claim was denied. 

  Accordingly, the Consumer’s complaint would more appropriately be addressed to the repair facility which incorrectly diagnosed the issue with her vehicle and requested the non-covered repair. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/05/2025

  
  
  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  I have spoke with the service team at the dealership and there is NO way to test a fuel pump after it is taken out of the vehicle.  The dealership would not have replaced the part if was not approved! 

  I am requesting that you maybe pay half of the $1100., because you APPROVED THE PART IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN RENEGED ON YOUR WORDS!!

  I am also requesting a CANCELLATION OF MY WARRANTY WITH YOUR COMPANY AND THE SO CALLED PRORATED PORTION REFUNDED.

   

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

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/27/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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.

  Warning!!! The dealership will sell you this service as a warranty. Apparently the way their contract is written it is not a standard vehicle warranty. There for MBPI states they don't have to follow warranty laws.
  This company will find any reason to not cover any major repairs.
  A huge waste of time and money.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/31/2024

  Good afternoon, 

  Based upon the information provided by the consumer, we are unable to locate a service contract issued to this consumer.  If the consumer can provide either a service contract number or the VIN number for the vehicle, we may be able to search further to identify the contract in question. 

  Sincerely, 

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

  Regulatory Affairs Manager, MBPI

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/07/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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.

  Purchased A 2016 Hyundai Tucson from Wood Nissan with an extended warranty on 01/04/2024.
  The vehicle is burning oil profusely. Not Leaking, BURNING oil thru the motor. Had the vehicle to the dealer a few times. Suggested an oil consumption test to drive vehicle. Vehicle is a quart low every 13 to 14 days. Went 584 miles and need oil in 13 days. Vehicle has been in dealer shop since 04/08/2024. Needs the motor replaced. MBPI has sent 3 different inspectors to the shop. They will not replace the motor or rebuild it from the bottom up. Vehicle has a bad motor. I owned the vehicle 4 months, it's been in the dealer's shop for past 30 days. Now all I get is silence. I am still paying on the vehicle. paid $2190 for the extended warranty. They do not want to honor. They are hinting that we should drive the vehicle until the motor burns up and Hyundai will replace the engine. Bought this car for our 19 yo daughter. this vehicle would be unsafe to drive. Vehicle is still in shop today 05/07/2024 with no one talking about solving the problem. I am still paying on this vehicle which is unusable. If the motor is not replaced, the vehicle should be junked.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/10/2024

  Re: Contract ********
  
  To whom it may concern,
  
  This is a dispute regarding the resolution of a
  claim filed under a vehicle service contract.  The consumer’s claim has been
  denied by Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) due to the cause of
  the mechanical breakdown being expressly excluded from coverage under the vehicle service contract.  However, as
  the second cause of failure is covered under Hyundai special coverage policy
  22**********, the consumer can return to Hyundai to process a claim for the
  engine replacement under said manufacturer’s warranty coverage.   
  
  On or about January 4, 2024, the consumer purchased a
  2016 Hyundai Tucson Limited (“Vehicle”) from Wood Nissan Kansas City (“Selling
  Dealer”).  In connection with that
  purchase, the consumer also purchased the MBPI Extra Vehicle Service Contract #
  16270509 (“Vehicle Service Contract”) from the Selling Dealer.  
  
  On or about March 27, 2024, MBPI received a call from a
  repair facility servicing the Vehicle which reported the Vehicle had some sort
  of internal failure, but they were unable to identify any oil leaks.  MBPI advised the repair facility to perform
  an oil consumption study and report when the Vehicle was one quart low on
  oil. 
  
  On or about April 8, 2024, MBPI received a call from the
  repair facility reporting that the Vehicle had traveled roughly 500 miles
  before reaching the one quart low mark. MBPI authorized the repair facility to disassemble
  the engine and isolate the cause of failure. 
  
  After the engine was disassembled, two causes of failure
  were found:
  1)  The piston rings were seized due to carbon build up which caused cylinder scoring and unnatural wear. 
  2)  A scored crankshaft rod bearing.   
  
  Regarding the first cause of failure, the piston rings
  being seized due to carbon buildup, the carbon deposits and resulting damage
  was verified by two separate inspectors. 
  Under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract, the
  contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon
  deposits.
  
  Regarding the second cause of failure, the scored
  crankshaft rod bearing, this item is covered under Hyundai special coverage
  policy ************.  Under the terms and
  conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract, the contract specifically excludes
  coverage for the repair or replacement of a covered part while covered by a
  manufacturer’s warranty.  Accordingly, the consumer will need to return to Hyundai and file a claim under the special
  coverage policy described above to obtain coverage for the engine replacement as
  neither cause of failure is covered under the Vehicle Service Contract.     
  
  If there are any further questions regarding this matter,
  I can be reached at ###-###-#### or via email a* *************************.com. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******
  Regulatory Affairs Manager, MBPI

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/17/2024

  Re: Contract ********
  

  To Whom it may concern,
  

  Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”, “We”, “Us”
  and “Our”) has reviewed the additional correspondence provided by the consumer.  As we described in our initial response, the
  damage to the consumer’s vehicle is covered by the manufacturer under Hyundai’s
  special coverage policy 22-EM-006H-2 (“Hyundai Warranty”).  Accordingly, the resolution the consumer
  seeks must be obtained through filing a claim under the Hyundai Warranty.  As of the writing of this response, we are
  currently working with the consumer to assist him in locating a Hyundai
  dealership that can process his claim under the Hyundai Warranty. 

  With that said, regarding the consumer’s claims in the
  additional correspondence, to begin, throughout the consumer’s complaint and
  the additional correspondence the consumer refers to the motor vehicle service
  contract as a “warranty.”  That is
  incorrect, it is a motor vehicle service contract as defined under RSMO §
  385.200(9).  A copy of the vehicle
  service contract has been attached to this response (see attached).  As the Administrator, MBPI’s role is to
  adjudicate any claims under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service
  contract. 

  Under those terms and conditions, the vehicle service
  contract does not provide coverage for any of the following:
  

        1) Any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon buildup;

       2) The repair or replacement of any part while covered by any manufacturer’s warranty;

       3) The repair or replacement of any part to correct conditions that existed prior to the Contract Purchase Date. 

  As we stated in our initial response, the first cause of
  failure that has been identified was the piston rings being seized due to
  carbon buildup which caused cylinder scoring and unnatural wear.  We have contacted the consumer and they
  agreed with this determination.  As we
  stated above, the vehicle service contract does not provide coverage for any
  mechanical breakdown caused by carbon buildup (see Contract page 6,
  Exclusion # 11).    

  The second cause of failure that has been identified was
  a scored crankshaft rod bearing.  As we
  have stated above and in our initial response, that failure is covered by the
  Hyundai Warranty (see attached Hyundai Warranty).  As we stated above, the vehicle service
  contract does not provide coverage for the repair or replacement of any part
  while covered by any manufacturer’s warranty (see Contract page 5,
  Exclusion # 6, and Contract page 1, second paragraph).  
  
  While the vehicle service contract does provide coverage
  for specific items relating to the engine, that coverage is subject to the
  terms and conditions of the contract.  As
  I have described above and in our initial response, the damage to the
  consumer’s vehicle is not covered due to the exclusions noted above.  The proper recourse for the consumer is to
  file a claim with Hyundai under the Hyundai Warranty. 
  

  While MBPI does not have any information which would lead
  us to believe that the condition existed prior to the contract purchase date,
  as the consumer now claims in their additional correspondence, if that were the
  case, the contract would not provide coverage for the pre-existing
  condition.  This is stated in bold faced
  text on the first page of the vehicle service contract and again in bold faced
  text on page 5 under General Exclusions from Coverage, Item #5. 
  

  At no point has any MBPI representative told the consumer
  to “drive the car until the engine fails or burns up.”  As we described in our initial response, the
  damage to the consumer’s vehicle is covered by the manufacturer under the Hyundai
  Warranty.  To obtain coverage for the
  engine replacement, the consumer must file a claim under the Hyundai Warranty
  through a Hyundai dealership.  
  

  Lastly, MBPI categorically denies the consumer’s
  allegation that “[MBPI] had 3 different inspectors look at the car until [MBPI]
  got one that would confer with [MBPI’s] refusal to repair.”  Only two (2) physical inspections of the
  Vehicle occurred and both determined the cause of failure to be due to the
  piston rings being seized due to carbon buildup.  As we have stated previously, the vehicle
  service contract does not provide coverage for any material breakdown caused by
  carbon buildup. 
  

  The first inspection occurred on or about April 17, 2024
  and the inspector found the oil control rings to be seized due to carbon build
  up, which caused the cylinder scoring and unnatural wear.  As I described above, we have contacted the
  consumer and the consumer agrees with this determination that the piston rings
  were seized due to carbon buildup. 
  

  At the request of the repair facility, MBPI authorized a
  second inspection of the vehicle. 
  However, the inspector initially went to the incorrect location on April
  25, 2024.  The actual second inspection
  occurred on or about April 29, 2024. 
  During the second inspection, the inspector also confirmed the cause of
  failure to be “material failure to the piston rings due to carbon buildup in
  the oil control rings.” 
  

  In conclusion, this is a dispute regarding the
  adjudication of a claim under a vehicle service contract.  The damage to the consumer’s vehicle was
  caused by carbon buildup.  The vehicle
  service contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused
  by carbon buildup.  Additionally, there
  is a second cause of failure that is covered by the manufacturer under the
  Hyundai Warranty.  The vehicle service
  contract does not provide coverage for the repair or replacement of any part
  while covered by any manufacturer’s warranty. 
  Nonetheless, MBPI is currently working to assist the consumer in
  locating a Hyundai dealership that can process the consumer’s claim under the Hyundai
  Warranty.  As you can see from the
  information provided above, this claim was adjudicated properly and
  appropriately under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract
  and the consumer’s complaint can be dismissed. 
  

  If there
  are any further questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at
  ###-###-#### or via email at **************************com. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******
  Regulatory
  Affairs Manager, MBPI

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/21/2024

  We are working with the dealer thru MBPI to get Hyundai to resolve this issue. We purchased the warranty on the same day we purchased the car. If it became our problem on day 1 of the car purchase. It became there MBPI's problem along with us on day 1 of the car purchase. That was the point of the extended service plan. You can state previous issues that no one knew of including the dealer or car fax report. It's a catch 22..You can have it both ways. We are waiting to see what happens when the car gets to a Hyundai dealer. This issued is NOT resolved.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/08/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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 purchased an extended warranty for my car. The company is trying not to replace my transmission in accordance with the dealership service dept recommendation. The vehicle is still under the ext warranty. The company says they won’t cover the costs unless the broken/deficient part is identified. If the dealer takes apart the tranny and can’t identify the broken part I am on the hook for the ~$3k cost of removing, diagnosing, and replacing. It’s a closed case tranny and there may be no way to make that determination. The warranty company is trying to get out of covering the repair.
  
  They were equally difficult when the AC unit went out last summer and their delaying tactics forced me to pay for a rental car for a month. They eventually covered the repair costs, but not the rental.
  
  VIN: ****** Contract: ********

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/08/2024

  To whom it may concern,
  
  This is a dispute regarding the resolution of a claim.  The consumer’s claim is still in review as
  the repair facility has been unable to identify the cause of the failure to
  determine if there is coverage under the vehicle service contract. 
  
  On or about January 1, 2020, the consumer purchased a
  2017 Genesis G80 (“Vehicle”) and a Premier Vehicle Service Contract (“Contract”)
  from Terry Lee Hyundai.  Contrary to the
  allegations contained within the complaint, the Contract is not an extended warranty
  but is in fact a vehicle service contract. 
  Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) is the administrator of
  the Contract. 
  
  On or about February 2, 2024, the repair facility servicing
  the Vehicle contacted MBPI and reported metal in the transmission fluid and
  advised that the Vehicle’s transmission needed to be replaced. 
  
  On or about February 6, 2024, an inspector was sent to
  the repair facility to examine the Vehicle. 
  During a road test, the inspector noted an intermittent bumping engagement
  from second to third gear but did not consider this to be abnormal.  The inspector also did not identify any metal
  in the transmission fluid.  As the
  inspector was not able to identify any cause of failure, but the repair facility
  is indicating that there is an internal transmission failure, the transmission
  would need to be disassembled to locate and isolate the purported cause of failure. 
  
  Under the terms and conditions of the Contract, the
  Contract does not cover the expense of diagnostic inspection, disassembly and
  reassembly, if the inspection determines that the failure was not caused by a mechanical
  breakdown which is covered by the Contract. 
  For this reason, MBPI requests the repair facility obtain the customer’s
  authorization prior to performing any diagnostic disassembly.  This was explained to the consumer by MBPI’s
  claims manager on February 7, 2024. 
  
  At this point in the claim, MBPI cannot authorize any
  repairs without first determining if there is mechanical breakdown that is
  covered under the Contract.  MBPI is not “trying
  to get out of covering the repair” as the consumer claims. 
  
  Regarding the consumer’s prior claim, the repair facility
  the consumer selected to service the vehicle refused to perform any diagnostic
  testing to locate and isolate the cause of failure in the Vehicle’s air
  conditioning system.  As stated above, MBPI
  cannot authorize any repairs under the Contract without first determining if
  there is a mechanical breakdown that is covered under the Contract.  Ultimately, after considerable effort working
  with the repair facility, MBPI was able to authorize the repairs on the prior
  claim.   
  
  In summary, this is a dispute regarding the resolution of
  claim, which is currently still being investigated to determine if there is a
  mechanical breakdown which would be covered under the Contract.  Under the terms and conditions of the Contract,
  the Contract does not cover the expense of diagnostic inspection, disassembly,
  and reassembly, if the inspection determines that the failure was not caused by
  a mechanical breakdown which is covered by the Contract. If there are any
  further questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at ###-###-#### or
  via email at **************@mbpnetwork.com. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******
  Regulatory Affairs Manager, MBPI

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/30/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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.

  In August of 2023 I began an oil consumption inventory with my auto mechanics, ****** **** *****. After 5,000 miles of inventory with having my oil checked every 1,000 miles, ****** **** ***** determined my engine needed to be tore down and likely replaced. After taking down the engine, it was determined the piston rings had failed. ****** **** ***** reached out to MBPI for coverage and MBPI asked ****** **** ***** to tear down into the pistons further. After viewing images, MBPI sent out a vehicle inspector, ***** from Verity Inspections. Verity Inspections reported my engine needed to be replaced. MBPI is claiming that they will not cover my engine replacement due to "carbon build up." Carbon has built up due to the failed piston rings.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/30/2024

  To whom it may concern:
  
  This is a dispute regarding the denial of a claim under a
  vehicle service contract. 
  
  On or about July 1, 2020, the consumer purchased a 2015
  ********* ******* LT (the “Vehicle”) from West Metro Buick GMC.  In connection with the sale of the Vehicle,
  the consumer purchased a Premier Vehicle Service Contract (the “Contract”)
  which is administered by Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”). 
  
  On or about January 12, 2024, a repair facility servicing
  the Vehicle contacted MBPI and reported that the repair facility had been
  working with the consumer to perform an “oil consumption study” during which
  the consumer brought the vehicle to the repair facility every one thousand
  (1,000) miles to document the Vehicle’s oil consumption.  On the most recent appointment, the Vehicle
  was short five (5) quarts of oil (according the manufacturer’s specifications,
  the Vehicle’s oil capacity is five (5) quarts). 
  The repair facility also found metal in what oil remained the Vehicle
  and “gunk on the oil fill cap.”   In their opinion there was likely an issue
  with the piston rings, but it would need an inspection to determine the actual
  cause of failure. 
  
  On or about January 19, 2024, the inspector documented
  the piston rings to be recessed and stuck in the piston ring land grooves, and determined
  the cause of failure to be “patterns of damage are consistent with a failure of
  the piston rings on cylinder 2 and 3 caused by carbon build up and causing sub
  damage to the cylinder walls.” Under the terms and conditions of the Contract, the
  Contract does not provide coverage for “any mechanical breakdown caused by …
  sludge or carbon deposits.” (see Exclusions from Coverage, Item 11).
  
  Furthermore, the extent of the damage to the Vehicle’s
  engine was compounded by the continued operation of the Vehicle in a failed
  state (i.e., being driven while low on oil).  This was evidenced by the repair facility when
  the claim was reported on January 12, 2024 and verified by the inspector on January
  19, 2024.  The consumer also acknowledged
  that the Vehicle was five (5) quarts low on oil when it was brought into the repair
  facility on January 12, 2024 (see Oil Consumption Worksheet, line 5).  As noted above, according to the
  manufacturer’s specifications, the oil capacity of a 2015 ***** Equinox LT is
  five (5) quarts. 
  
  Under the terms and conditions of the Contract, the Contract
  does not provide coverage for “any mechanical breakdown caused by … inadequate
  coolant, lubricants or fluids” (see Exclusions from Coverage, Item
  11).  Additionally, the consumer is
  required to use reasonable means to protect the Vehicle from further damage in
  order to prevent additional expenses, repairs or the complete denial of a claim
  (see What to do in the event of a Mechanical Breakdown, Your
  Responsibilities, item 1). 
  
  In summary, the carbon buildup on the piston caused the
  failure of the piston rings, which caused vehicle’s excessive oil
  consumption.  The continued operation of
  the vehicle in this failed state (i.e., while the Vehicle was low on oil)
  caused the catastrophic engine failure.  The
  failure of the piston rings is not covered under the Contract as the Contract
  does not provide coverage for mechanical breakdowns caused by carbon
  deposits.  The further damage to the engine
  is not covered under the Contract as the Contract does not provide coverage for
  mechanical breakdowns caused by inadequate lubrication and the consumer did not
  exercise reasonable means to protect the Vehicle from further damage.  Accordingly, it is the opinion of MBPI that
  the consumer’s claim was properly denied and this matter can be closed. 
  
  If there are any further questions regarding this matter,
  I can be reached at ###-###-#### or via email at **************@mbpnetwork.com.  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/05/2024

  
  
  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

  Date:01/16/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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 paid for the premier extended warranty with Mechanical Breakdown Protection on 5/9/2020 when I purchased my used 2014 Chevy Captiva LS. I have had my first few oil changes with West Metro, as I got a few free services with the purchase of the vehicle. After those were done, I was going to a certified Chevy dealership to get my oil changes, tires, and other maintence. I have never missed a service. There is documentation of all of these services. On 12/17/2023 my Captiva stopped running and it was investigated and deteremined as no oil in the car, and that is why they are not approving this. I have never been told that the oil was low, there was no oil light on the dash, and there was no smoke indicating this. Now, Mechnical Brekdown Protection is saying they will not cover this due to a lack of maintence. I would like to have you fight on my behalf to get them to cover this so Wayzata Chevy can do the maintence to get my car back up and running. I am in the process of getting a copy of the oil change/maintenance records and will be able to provide this at a later date.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/17/2024

  To whom it may concern:
  

  Upon review of the consumer’s claim file, the claim was not
  denied “due to a lack of maintenance.” 
  

  The consumer’s vehicle suffered a catastrophic failure to
  the timing chain which allowed the valves to contact each other.  This was caused by the vehicle being operated
  while low on oil.  Upon examination, there
  was no oil present on the dipstick, thus the vehicle was missing multiple quarts
  of oil.  This low oil directly contributed
  to the engine failure described above. 
  

  Under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service
  Contract, the contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown
  caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids. 
  Accordingly, the consumer’s claim was properly denied.  

  If you have any further questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at either ************ or via email at *****************************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/23/2024

  see attached

  Good afternoon,

   

  This is in response to the response provided by the Consumer on January 19, 2024. 

   

  Regarding whether or not the customer received a full copy of the Vehicle Service Contract when she purchased the vehicle from West Metro Buick GMC (“West Metro”) on May 9, 2020, Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) was not the seller of the contract, and thus can neither confirm nor deny what may have been provided to her by the selling dealer in connection with her purchase of the vehicle and the accompanying Vehicle Service Contract.  If she did not receive a full copy of the Vehicle Service Contract at the time of purchase, that complaint would need to be addressed with the selling dealer, West Metro.  I have attached a full copy of the Vehicle Service Contract to this response. 

   

  Of note, on the first page of the Vehicle Service Contract, just above the consumer’s signature, she acknowledges “that you have read, understand and accept the Terms and Conditions of this Contract”.  Under those Terms and Conditions, the Vehicle Service Contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids (see Exclusions from Coverage item 11). 

   

  Regarding the consumer’s claim that she “had no indication that the oil was low,” two indicator lights could potentially have illuminated:

  • CHANGE ENGINE OIL NOW
  • OIL PRESSURE LOW STOP ENGINE

  However, the vehicle’s computer does not store records regarding the illumination of these type of warning indicators.  Regardless, the Vehicle Service Contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids.  I have attached a copy of the inspection report to this response.

   

  Regarding the maintenance that was performed on the vehicle by Chevrolet of Wayzata, that repair facility is not affiliated with MBPI and we have no knowledge of what they may or may not have informed her regarding the status of the vehicle, or what maintenance Chevrolet of Wayzata may or may not have performed on the vehicle.  Again, the claim has not been denied due to a lack of maintenance records.  The claim has been denied because the Vehicle Service Contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids and, in the case of the consumer’s claim, the mechanical breakdown was caused by inadequate oil.  Accordingly, the claim is not covered under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract.   

   

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/24/2024

   
  
  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  I don't feel that this issue was in any way my fault and I should not feel responsible for this. There was no indication of the oil being low and it was never mentioned by the Certified dealership (Wayzata Chev). MBPI claimed it could have potentially illuminated change engine oil now or oil pressure low stop engine but neither appeared on the dash at any time. MBPI is claiming that Chevrolet of Wayzata is not affiliated with them, where does a person need to go to get correct maintenance then? This is a Certified dealership and they should be trusting of what was performed on the car by them. There was documentation of all records showing that there was routine oil changes and work completed. Both MBPI and the dealership should have to find a resolution to this.
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  **** **********

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/27/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  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 purchased a service contract/ warranty for 3 year coverage from MBPI through ******** ****** of Sedalia, MO when I purchased a 2007 Corvette Z06 a little over a year ago. The car broke down with catastrophic engine failure. They sent an inspector and confirmed the engine was "seized" which is what the mechanics found. They asked for proof of maintenance/ oil changes, which I provided all 4 showing I complied. The company asked the mechanic shop to drain the oil and they found 3 quarts when the car holds a capacity of 8 quarts. MBPI denied the claim and blamed the shop that did the last oil change. This shop I have used for years and sat there and WATCHED through a glass wall as they changed the oil and I checked it prior to leaving as always. MBPI is saying since the inspector they sent found no sign of an oil leak they were denying the claim because how could 5 quarts of oil go missing without a leak? "So it had to be the oil change" was their words. I was there to see the oil change and I was there when my car broke down and had smoke pouring out of the exhaust AND OIL leaking onto the street from the exhaust. They said their inspector did not see "staining" on the exhaust to indicate this. REGARDLESS........I KNOW the oil was changed, even verified it prior to leaving......and the service contract states it covers "any internally lubricated part". The FIRST words out of the mechanics mouths when they saw the engine was "seized" were "it had to be some type of internal component such as valve guides, pistons, rods, etc and the engine locked up and oil loss resulted". How can an inspector spending a few minutes looking at a car counter experienced mechanics? MBPI claims the lack of oil caused the failure. Myself and the mechanics hold that internal failure caused the catastrophic oil loss. Now I am paying 700 monthly for a car that doesn't run INCLUDING money to MBPI in the loan for a warranty for an engine that no longer exists, thanks to MBPI.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/03/2023

  This letter is in response to the complaint described
  above (the “Complaint”) wherein the consumer disputes the denial of a claim which
  was filed under a Vehicle Service Contract. 
  Upon review, the denial of the claim was proper and in accordance with
  the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract. 
  According to our records, the consumer’s vehicle was
  brought into the repair facility for a catastrophic engine failure.  Our inspector verified that the engine oil
  was low.  There were no external leaks,
  and the exhaust tips were dry, indicating the vehicle was not burning an
  excessive amount of oil.  The repair
  facility then drained and measured the oil present in the vehicle.  This engine holds eight (8) quarts of oil but
  only three (3) quarts were measured. 
  This means that the system was operating at 38% of the total system capacity,
  which lead to the catastrophic engine lockup. 
  A representative of Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc.
  (“MBPI”) explained to the consumer that the failure was due to a lack of
  lubrication.  For a 2007 Corvette, there
  are two different engine configurations. One configuration holds five (5)
  quarts of oil, while the second configuration, the consumer’s vehicle’s engine
  configuration, holds eight (8) quarts.  It
  appears that the repair facility that performed the most recent oil change
  mistakenly added only five (5) quarts.  If
  that were the case, it would cause the oil to superheat and slowly burn off
  until the oil level becomes too low to operate the engine.  This matches what occurred with the
  consumer’s vehicle.  MBPI representatives
  explained this to the consumer and recommended that the consumer contact the
  repair facility that performed the most recent oil change and obtain
  documentation (i.e., photographic proof) of the measurement of oil removed
  from his vehicle.  The consumer
  declined. 
  In the complaint, the consumer claims that an “internal
  failure caused the catastrophic oil loss.” 
  This is not possible.  As I
  described above, there were no external leaks and no oil present in the
  exhaust.  Contrary to the allegations in
  the consumer’s complaint, the inspector’s findings are consistent with the
  information the consumer received from the repair facility representative.  There likely was a failure of bearing,
  pistons, or rods, but that failure, and the resulting catastrophic engine failure,
  was caused by the lack of lubrication.  
  Under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service
  Contract, the service contract expressly excludes coverage for any Mechanical
  Breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids.   Accordingly, the denial of the consumer’s
  claim was correct and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
  Vehicle Service Contract.