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:01/05/2023

  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.

  MBPI made no payment to my car lender knowing they were obligated to. I submitted all necessary paperwork and explained that insurance did not pay the lender and they still did nothing. I purchased their services to prevent something disastrous like this. I just want them to pay what they owe.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/03/2023

  This is in response to Complaint ID ******** (the “Complaint”).  In the Complaint, the consumer alleges that
  MBPI failed to pay the amount owed under a GAP Waiver contract after the
  consumer filed a claim for the total loss of the vehicle.  This is incorrect.  MBPI reviewed the materials provided by the
  consumer and processed the consumer’s claim under the terms and conditions of
  the GAP Waiver. 
  On or about July 17, 2022 (“Date of Loss”), the consumer was
  involved in an accident which rendered the vehicle inoperable due to tire/wheel
  damage.  At this point, the damage to the
  vehicle, according to the 3rd party insurance estimate, amounted to
  $2,195.56.  However, instead of having
  the vehicle towed to a repair facility, the consumer drove the vehicle on a
  flat tire to a hotel parking lot where it subsequently caught fire.  According to the claim report provided by the
  3rd party insurance, “the rotational damage and friction generated a
  high amount of heat which led to a combustion that developed into a fire.”  This is also confirmed by the fire report provided
  by College Park Fire and Rescue.  “Driver/owner
  of vehicle found in hotel and was able to explain that they were involved in an
  accident earlier and drove vehicle to parking lot on flat tire.  Presumed that heat from driving on flat tire
  caused vehicle fire.”  As a result, the 3rd party insurance only took responsibility for the damage caused by the initial
  accident and did not cover additional damage caused by the consumer’s continued
  operation of the vehicle and resulting fire. 
  On the Date of Loss, the consumer did not have insurance coverage
  on the vehicle.  Under the terms and
  conditions of the GAP Waiver, in the event there is no primary insurance
  carrier coverage in effect on the date of loss, the financial institution
  waives the difference between the Net Payoff as of the Date of Loss and the
  Actual Cash Value.   The Actual Cash Value of the Vehicle (the
  retail value of the vehicle, on the Date of Loss, as listed in the NADA Used
  Car Guide) was determined to be $20,325.00.  The Net Payoff is the consumer’s unpaid balance ($16,453.16), as of the
  Date of Loss, reduced by the recoverable portion of financed charges such as
  refunds from the cancellation of a Vehicle Service Contract ($978.90) and the
  GAP Waiver in question ($735.24).  As the
  Net Payoff amount is less than the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle, the GAP amount
  is $0.     
  In conclusion, the reason that the consumer’s claim under
  the GAP Waiver did not result in a payment to the lienholder is not for the
  reasons the consumer described in the Complaint.  On the Date of Loss, the consumer did not
  have insurance coverage for the vehicle and was involved in an accident which
  rendered the vehicle inoperable. Despite this, the consumer drove the vehicle
  on a flat tire long enough that it caused a fire.  Under the terms and conditions of the GAP
  Waiver, if there is not primary insurance coverage for the vehicle on the date
  of loss, the GAP amount is based on the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle.  Since the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle
  exceeded the consumer’s unpaid balance, there is not a GAP amount under the GAP
  Waiver.  Accordingly, this claim was
  handled correctly under the terms and conditions of the GAP Waiver purchased by
  the consumer.