Complaints

This profile includes complaints for CARco Inc's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

CARco Inc has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  CARco Inc

  PO Box 1268 Exton, PA 19341-0963

• 

  CARco Inc

  415 Eagleview Blvd Ste 100 Exton, PA 19341-1143

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:07/24/2025

  Type:Product 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.

  I had bought a jeep in 2023 and the dealership used Carco as the company for the gap insurance. I have since traded the vehicle in February 2025 and I am trying to cancel it to get the refund for the remaining term. I have emailed multiple times with the cancelation form, I have tried calling many times, ive left multiple messages and I have not heard anything back not even once and haven't received a refund.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/02/2025

  I have taken screenshots of the emails I have tried to send to them with the cancelation details. I also have sent it by fax thinking they were not getting the emails. I still have not heard back about any of this and cannot get anyone on the phone. Leaving messages with them also does not get me any calls back. I attempted to contact the dealership who sold me the vehicle and the gap insurance with it through Carco, and they have not been any help.

  Business Response

  Date: 08/05/2025

  We do not process the cancellations directly for this dealership, so the customer will need to contact the dealer.  I can confirm that the policy is cancelled in our system with an effective date of 11/21/2023, but the actual refund would be issued by the dealership, not CARco.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/06/2025

  [A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
  
  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. 

  Thank you, I will contact the dealership again.
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *****
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/01/2025

  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 accuired ************* through the dealership where I bought my auto **** of Frisco). A month later I was hit by an uninsured, unlicensed driver. My insurance recognized part of the loss but I was left with an almost $10,000 bill with the financing company.After more than 4 months trying to get this gap insurer to finally pay, today I receive the notice that they only will pay a bit more than a thousand dollars, alleging all sorts of deductibles. I never signed up any contract that stated such deductibles. This beats the whole purpose of a gap insurance. I demand full payment of the difference between what the financing company loaned **** have had to make payments on this loan even without the car because of the delay of this gap insurer, and now they won't even pay their dues!

  Business Response

  Date: 07/08/2025

  The *** claim was initially filed with our office on 5/6/2025 at which time we still needed all of the required documents.  We received the last required documents on 6/13/2025 and claim payment was issued on 6/26/2025.  The loss occurred on 3/28/2025, so it is very confusing that the customer referred to "more than 4 months trying to get this gap insurer to finally pay" since 4 months have not even passed since the loss occurred.  As far as their *** claim calculation, the claim was processed according to their signed *** Addendum which is attached.  Per the definition of "Qualifying Loss" on page 2 of the *** Addendum, *** covers "the difference between the Net Payoff and the Actual Cash Value.  The Qualifying Loss includes the amount of the physical damage deductible on the Primary Carrier policy up to $1,000.00."  "Net Payoff" is defined as "Your outstanding balance as of the Date of Loss.  This does not include: ... other amounts received and applied against the Financing Contract balance after the Date of Loss, such as a refund of unearned credit insurance premiums or refunds on service contracts or prepaid maintenance contracts."  The customer financed the following with their loan:  $2,900.00 *************** Contract, $1,142.00 Tire & Wheel Contract, and $1,290.00 Maintenance Contract.  The following amounts were refunded for those products and applied against the customer's loan balance:  $2,850.00 for the *************** Contract, $1,092.00 for the Tire & Wheel Contract, and $1,240.00 for the Maintenance Contract.  Therefore, the Net Payoff was reduced by those amounts.  Also, as stated in the definition of "Qualifying Loss", the *** payment includes the customer's insurance deductible up to $1,000.00.  However, the customer carried a $2,500.00 on their policy with Liberty Mutual.  Therefore, $1,500.00 of the deductible was adjusted from the *** claim and remains the customer's responsibility.  Finally, per exclusion K. on page 3 of the *** Addendum, *** does not cover "any amounts deducted from the Primary Carrier settlement including, but not limited to:  wear and tear, prior damage, unpaid insurance premiums, rebates, towing, storage, and/or salvage."  On page 11 of Liberty Mutual's evaluation report, they deducted $2,388.00 due to the Condition of the customer's vehicle due to wear and tear.  Therefore, $2,388.00 was adjusted from the *** settlement due to the amount deducted from **************'s settlement.

  As a final note, per the attached payment history, there was a remaining balance of $3,512.46 after the insurance settlement and warranty refunds.  This is another confusing element of this complaint as it does not align with the customer's claim of "an almost $10,000 bill".

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/10/2025

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
  
   Complaint: 23544844
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I do not recognize the conditions on pages 2 and 3 of the *** addendum. All that was made public to me at the moment I acquired the alleged gap insurance that happens to be anything but a real gap insurance is page 1. SHOW ME WHERE is there a signature of mine where I acknowledge these conditions. You cannot just hide the fine print and then when it's time to pay, take them out of the sleve like a magic trick to avoid payment.
  

  If those had been the conditions of these gap insurance I would have never accepted it since its not a fair *** contract.
  
  To make it clear. I WAS NEVER MADE AWARE OF PAGES 2 OR 3 OF THE *** ADDENDUM. ALL I WAS SHOWN AD THE DEALERSHIP AND THAT I SIGNED WAS PAGE 1.
  Regards,
  
  ******** Rubiano ********
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/30/2025

  How would you simply dismiss my concern when the company is unable to provide proof that pages 2 and 3 of the so called GAP contract where never shown to me, hence are not enforceable clauses? I signed and paid for a gap agreement, under the understanding that it worked as *** usually works. That means, that contract is meant to protect me from the balance caused in case the insurance company doesn't cover the full totality of my loan.

   

  This company paid only a thousand dollars and I am left with 5000 in my loan. THAT IS NOT HOW GAP WORKS.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/27/2025

  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.

  My car was totaled due to a flash flood. I filed my claim according to the instructions and provided all the necessary documentation. This was back in September and my claim was never paid out, they will not answer any emails anymore and my claim number says invalid on their site. I've gotten no answers at all on this matter. I just want my claim paid.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/09/2025

  We cannot locate a claim based on the limited details included in the complaint.  We will need a VIN and/or a copy of the customer's signed GAP contract in order to research this further.  We will be happy to assist upon verification of the customer's vehicle and/or policy information.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/09/2025

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
  
   Complaint: 23384075
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  I have been trying to get a resolution since November of 2024 and it took me contacting the BBB to get a response and the response they sent me is different than what they send the BBB. I am working on getting the documents they requested even though I already submitted it before. This is beyond inconvenient and has caused a big problem on my credit and payment history. 
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* ******
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/18/2025

  The customer has still not provided any specific details with which to locate their claim and research their issue.  As stated in our previous response, we cannot locate a claim based on the customer's first and last name.  Therefore, I cannot assist any further at this time.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/18/2025

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
  
   Complaint: 23384075
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I provided the claim number and received an email regarding my claim with the claim number referenced so I did provide all the necessary information. However, I was told it is in the process of being resolved so hopefully that is true and this can be completed. 
  
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* ******
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/27/2025

  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 formally lodging a complaint regarding deceptive practices by AutoShield (Administrator / Comprehensive Auto Resource Company, ***** involving the "Total Loss Protection Plan" (Contract #AS-TLP-F-NY5000 dated 10/13/2024, costing $2100). Key issues:Ambiguous Contract Terms: The contract does not explicitly state it's non-cancelable. Standard industry practices, such as ******'s official *** plans, offer clearly cancellable terms, creating a reasonable expectation for consumers that similar products are cancellable unless explicitly stated otherwise.Administrative Non-Compliance: AutoShield directs consumers to an inactive website (***************************) for crucial information. ********** admitted to knowingly using outdated forms referencing obsolete resources, significantly obstructing access to essential contract details.Misrepresentation and Lack of Disclosure: The dealership initially presented ******'s official *** brochure, explicitly stating the *** product as optional and cancellable. As a first-time buyer, arriving at the dealership around noon with two young children, the excessively lengthy process (8 hours) resulted in exhaustion and confusion. Rapid electronic presentation of multiple documents made it difficult to distinguish terms clearly. Crucially, I was misled into believing AutoShields product was equivalent to Toyotas ***, and was never informed about the absence of cancellation terms.Potential Systemic Misrepresentation: The ambiguous terms may be deliberately designed to maximize profits, driven by dealership incentives for selling non-cancellable products. Investigating dealership commissions relative to cancellable *** products is essential.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/16/2025

  I am in receipt of the correspondence you sent to Comprehensive Auto Resources****** (CARco), which enclosed a Consumer Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau (the Complaint). Of note, Mr. ******* also filed complaints with the ***************************************** and the ***************************************  Copies of the response to those complaints and the supporting documentation is attached to this message, and these responses are fully adopted and incorporated herein.  Below, is a text response which is essentially identical to those responses.  The attachments referenced are attached hereto as well.   
  
  As an initial matter, I will note that CARco has nothing to do with ****************** Loss Protection product (***).  (A copy of Mr. ******** *** Agreement is attached for your reference).  Mr. ******** Complaint relates to his dissatisfaction with the terms of the Total Loss Protection product he purchased in connection with the purchase of his 2024 ****** 4Runner on October 13, 2024 from *************** in **************** ********.  Of note, CARco is not referenced anywhere on the *** Agreement entered into by Mr. ******** nor does CARco have any roll in selling or administering this product.    
  
  The *** product is provided, sold,and administered by AutoShield, as set forth explicitly on the *** Agreement executed by Mr. ************** In his Complaint, Mr. ******* alleges that CARco is the Administrator of the AutoShield *** product.  However, *********** *** Agreement, explicitly states that AutoShield is itself the Administrator in the Definitions section of the *** Agreement.  (See Mr. ******** *** Agreement attached).  As a factual matter, CARco is not identified or listed anywhere on the AutoShield *** Agreement.    
  
  AutoShield is a properly registered fictitious name for *********** (AutoShield), which is a Pennsylvania corporation which conducts business across the country, where permitted and properly authorized.  (Copies of the ********** corporate registration and its registration for the fictitious name AutoShield are attached for your reference).  While CARco shares common ownership with ********** and operates from the same building, CARco has no connection to the sale or administration of *********** *** purchase, nor does CARco sell or provide services for the *** program in any jurisdiction or locale. 
  
  CARco is a totally separate legal corporate entity from *********** and has no role in the business conducted by AutoShield,including the creation, sale, or administration of the *** product or any other AutoShield products or services.  I do not know why Mr. ******* identified CARco in his Complaint, as it has no connection to his *** purchase.  However,as he has filed a Complaint, even though it is inappropriate in this instance,please accept this letter and the accompanying attachments as AutoShields response to the Complaint, as well as on behalf of CARco, which has no connection to this matter whatsoever.        
  
  Total Loss Protection
  
  In connection with the purchase of his new 2024 ****** 4Runner (the Vehicle), Mr. ******* purchased a Total Loss Protection program from Westbury ****** (the Dealership) in ********* ******** for the stated price of $2,100.00.  (See Mr. ******** *** Agreement attached).
  
  The *** program is a AutoShield administered product, operating under its d/b/a of AutoShield, but it is not an insurance product under the law.  Instead, the ********************************** has stated in numerous published opinions that this type product offered by a motor vehicle dealership does not constitute the doing of insurance business under New York law.  (See OGC Opinion Nos. 08-03-13, 10-11-02).      
  
  The purpose of the *** program is to provide additional protection for a motor vehicle purchaser towards the purchase of a replacement vehicle in the event of a Total Loss of the purchased vehicle.  Pursuant to the *** program, if a purchaser suffers a total loss of the vehicle protected under the *** program during its term, the purchaser will be given a credit in the amount of $5,000.00 towards the purchase of a replacement vehicle at the dealership that sold the original vehicle and the *** Program. 
  
  Essentially, the *** program both protects the value of the purchased vehicle by granting a credit towards a replacement vehicle to defray the costs of replacing the vehicle, and also incents the purchaser to return to the dealership which sold them the original vehicle, in order to take advantage of the credit.  Accordingly, this produces a benefit for the purchaser, and also increases the likelihood of the purchaser buying another vehicle from the dealership, which is a benefit to the dealership as well.   
  
  The *** program, which is approved by the various lenders and state authorities where applicable, provides direct benefits to the purchaser of the program in the form of a direct credit towards a new vehicle.  It also produces a direct benefit to the dealerships which sell it in the form of directing additional sales to the dealership.  This is all done pursuant to the express terms of the *** Agreement itself.
  
  The *** program does not include a right to cancel the program after purchase.  The *** Agreement (attached) sets forth all of the relevant details about the program, and does not include any language providing any right to cancel the program after it is elected and purchased.  By its nature, the *** program does not support a right to cancel, as the program is designed to provide a benefit to the purchaser in the event of a total loss of the purchased vehicle only if the purchaser elects to purchase a replacement vehicle from the dealership who sold the original vehicle and the *** program. This is a significant incentive to help the dealership retain its customers, while providing a tangible and valuable benefit to the purchaser.  If the purchaser had the option to cancel the *** program for a refund when/if the purchaser looked for replacement vehicle, then it would effectively erase the benefit this program provides to the dealership, and it would destroy the bilateral benefit of the program.       
  
  Abdullo Akhadov Complaint
  
  The main thrust of Mr. ******** Complaint seems to be that the *** program is not a cancellable program, which he alleges is somehow deceptive or misleading.  In support of this assertion, he effectively alleges that if a contract does not say it cannot be cancelled, then it must be cancellable at the election of one party to the contract.  This is simply contrary to all established contract law in ****************** *************** and ************* which effectively acknowledge the binding nature of contracts pursuant to the terms set forth in the contracts themselves.
  
  In support of his assertion, ********** claims the AutoShield *** program contains Ambiguous and Misleading Contract Terms.  He supports this assertion by stating that ******* official GAP plans, which were offered to him for purchase, though it is not clear if he actually did purchase a GAP plan from ******, are cancellable and he encloses a copy of the brochure for the ****** GAP plan with his Complaint.  However, even as he makes this assertion, he acknowledges that the ****** GAP plan he is referencing has no connection to AutoShield or its *** program.  Accordingly, his assertion seems to be that because one product offered to him by ****** in connection with his purchase of his Vehicle was explicitly advertised as being fully cancellable, then he was justified in assuming that the *** program, which is a wholly different program than a GAP waiver and is offered by a completely separate company, must also be cancellable.  He then asserts that because the terms contained in the ****** GAP Waiver differ from the terms in the AutoShield *** program, the *** program terms are somehow ambiguous or misleading.  
  
  It is difficult to follow the logic of this argument, as he is effectively arguing that the AutoShield *** Agreement is ambiguous and misleading because it contains different terms than the ****** GAP Waiver program which was presented to him during the purchase of his vehicle.  This argument is simply illogical, because he is effectively asserting that a separate agreement from a different company somehow creates ambiguity in the AutoShield *** Agreement.  This is directly contrary to any contract law in ********* ************ and everywhere else. 
  
  Further, based on the information ********** actually presents, it also seems as though the opposite conclusion is more plausible.  He notes in his Complaint that the ****** GAP brochure explicitly states that it is cancellable, which is accurate as this information is explicitly set forth in the ****** GAP brochure attached to Mr. ******** Complaint.  He further notes that the AutoShield *** program documentation has no such language.  A much more logical inference from that information alone, would be that the *** program is not cancellable,as this language from the ****** GAP brochure is not present in the *** Agreement.  Additionally, the mere fact that another product from another vendor has different terms and conditions in no way makes the AutoShield *** program ambiguous or misleading, and any such assertion stretches credulity.    
  
  Moreover, these two programs are completely different in what they are offering, and more particularly in how they are regulated.  Under New York law (and most other states as well) GAP Waivers are highly regulated, and in almost every jurisdiction, they are required to be cancellable in order to approved by the various state authorities and lenders.  Accordingly, the ****** GAP waiver is cancellable not as a feature, but as a requirement of its approval and use.  In contrast, the *** program which is allowable for sale in ******** does not have this statutory/administrative requirement, because it is viewed as a much different product by the State of ********* 
  
  Next Mr. ******* argues there is Administrative Non-Compliance and Negligence with the AutoShield *** program because as he states: 
  
  AutoShield explicitly directs consumers to their official website (***************************) for additional terms and information.  This website is currently inactive, and upon inquiry, AutoShield admitted to knowingly using outdated contracts that reference obsolete resources.  
  
  This assertion fails for a number of reasons.  Initially, nowhere on the AutoShield *** Agreement does it direct the purchaser to the website for additional terms and information.  (See Mr. ******** *** Agreement).  Instead,the *** Agreement merely lists the website at the bottom of the document below the address and phone number for AutoShield, without directing the purchaser to this site for any stated purpose or reason.  It also is worth noting, that no additional information or terms are necessary, as the *** Agreement itself contains all applicable terms and conditions, as it is itself a contract.  As such, no additional terms or conditions listed on a website could operate to modify the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement itself as a matter of law. 
  
  Moreover, the AutoShield website is not obsolete, though it is not currently in operation as AutoShield is conducting a complete redevelopment and upgrade of its website, which is in no way prohibited by or violative of any legal authorities or contractual conditions related to any of its products.  More importantly, the telephone number and address listed above this website address are and have always been active, such that AutoShield customers have numerous ways to contact ********** for assistance with any of their legitimate questions, concerns, or issues. 
  
  Mr. ******* next argues that there is Misrepresentation and Lack of Disclosure owing to the fact that the dealership which sold him the AutoShield *** program initially presented him with ******s GAP Waiver plan which clearly states that the ****** GAP program is cancellable.  Much of this argument has been address in reference to Mr. ******* initial assertion (including that ********** acknowledges that these are two separate products offered by different companies with no connection to one another), but it is worth noting here that ********** has no reasonable responsibility for any conduct of the dealership which sold Mr. ******* his vehicle, and the only representations or disclosures made by AutoShield were expressly contained in the AutoShield *** Agreement which Mr. ******* accepted and purchased.
  
  Finally, Mr. ******* asserts that there is Potential Systemic Misrepresentation owing to the ambiguous termsin the AutoShield *** program which are driven by financial incentives to dealerships for the sale of non-cancellable products.  AutoShield has addressed Mr. ******** claims of ambiguity in the *** Agreement in detail above, and as noted above, no such ambiguity exists, and there are no misrepresentations in the AutoShield *** Agreement.  Accordingly, this allegation falls apart along with the other allegations set forth in his Complaint.            
  
  Conclusion
  
  As set forth in detail above, there is nothing improper,misleading, or ambiguous about the AutoShield *** program.  All of the terms and conditions of the AutoShield *** program are set forth explicitly in the AutoShield *** Agreement, which ********** acknowledges was provided to him when he purchased this product. 
  
  As noted above, the AutoShield *** product is not a cancellable product after the agreement is signed and the product is purchased,and there is nothing in the AutoShield *** Agreement or the marketing of this product which would lead any reasonable person to believe this right is included in the *** Agreement.  *********** entire Complaint seems to be solely based on his assertion that because the ****** GAP Waiver program is cancellable, as explicitly set forth in the brochure for that product, then it was reasonable for him to assume that the terms of that product applied to the AutoShield *** program, which is a wholly different product, offered by a completely separate entity, and contained in a different contract.  This is simply not a reasonable position to take as a matter of fact, and it finds no support under the law.    
  
  I believe I have adequately addressed the errors made in ******************** Complaint above, and effectively refuted his allegations that ********** failed in any regard to live up to its obligations under the *** Agreement.  Accordingly, at this point, ********** will consider this matter closed unless or until we receive any further communications or directions from the Better Business Bureau requesting additional information or initiating any proceeding involving AutoShield.
  
  As noted above, CARco has no connection to Mr. ******* or the AutoShield *** program.  Accordingly, it is a complete mystery to me as to why any claim was submitted against CARco.  Accordingly, CARco will rely on the above submitted statements as to any claims made against it in connection to the AutoShield *** program and Mr. ******** complaints related to that entity and that program.        
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/24/2025

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
  
  Complaint: 23377437
  

  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Comprehensive Auto Resources Company **** (CARco)/AutoShields recent statement regarding my complaint about the Total Loss Protection Plan (Contract #AS-TLP-F-NY5000, purchased on 10/13/2024 for $2,100). Their response includes several factual inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and omissions requiring further regulatory attention.

  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  1. Ambiguous and Misleading Administrator Identity: AutoShield/CARcos response now asserts that CARco has no involvement with my Total Loss Protection (TLP) Agreement, distancing itself entirely from responsibility. However, this stance directly contradicts earlier interactions, where I contacted the administrator via the phone number listed in my contract and was specifically directed to CARcos website and representatives. Emails from CARco representatives, particularly *****, Senior Cancellation Specialist, explicitly stated, As the administrator, it is our responsibility to cover all agreements on the contract. At no point before escalating my complaint did CARco disclaim involvement. Only after I escalated my complaint to regulatory bodies did CARco suddenly assert a lack of involvement. This contradictory communication is problematic: CARco previously represented itself as the responsible administrator for the Total Loss Protection Plan, creating reasonable consumer reliance upon their authority. Their abrupt reversal indicates misrepresentation by omission and raises serious concerns about good faith and transparency.
  CARco and AutoShield (a d/b/a of ***********) share an operational structureincluding the same Exton, PA address, contact resources,and staffleading consumers reasonably to understand them as a unified entity.This interconnection was never clearly disclosed, adding further ambiguity and confusion about contractual accountability.

  
  2. Contradictory Communications and Ambiguous Cancellation Terms: CARco claims the product is inherently non-cancelable, yet the contract itself lacks explicit non-cancellation language. Standard consumer contract law dictates ambiguities should be resolved against the drafter. Additionally, industry norms and comparable GAP products, including ******* official GAP plans presented concurrently during the sales process, explicitly permit cancellations. CARcos own publicly available policies, website information, and prior responses to other BBB complaints explicitly provide instructions and forms for cancelling similar products and obtaining pro-rated refunds. This directly contradicts their current position, significantly undermining their credibility. Again, the absence of explicit disclosure regarding cancellation terms at the point of sale creates ambiguity, which under standard contract law principles should be resolved in favor of the consumer, especially given industry norms.
  Inactive and Misleading Contact Information: The contract explicitly directs customers to AutoShields website (***************************) for further information, yet the site is inactive. CARco admits they knowingly use outdated contracts referencing obsolete resources, constituting a serious administrative and compliance failure. This materially obstructed access to essential product information and transparency.

  3. Misrepresentation in the Sales Process: During the sale at *********************, I was explicitly shown ******* official GAP brochure, which clearly stated that GAP coverage is cancellable. At no time did the dealership or documentation clearly distinguish AutoShields product or indicate it lacked cancellation rights. Furthermore, the lengthy and exhausting sales process (approximately 8 hours), combined with the electronic signing of multiple complex documents, significantly hindered my ability to fully review or understand critical differences or omissions. CARco/*********** official response seeks to deflect responsibility to the dealership, citing no involvement in the sales process. However, the administration of the contract is equally criticalparticularly transparency in customer communications, clear disclosure of terms, and providing access to valid customer ******************** (see point 3 above).

  4. Potential Systemic Issues and Consumer Exploitation: CARco/AutoShields contradictory stance, ambiguous disclosures, and potential dealership financial incentives for promoting non-cancellable products suggest broader consumer exploitation concerns. I will share the current communication with State Attorneys and further urge regulators to investigate:
  Whether CARco/AutoShield routinely represent themselves as administrators yet disclaim responsibility when challenged.
  Dealership incentive structures encouraging the sale of non-cancellable products.
  Persistent use of outdated forms with inaccurate contact channels and insufficient disclosures.

  Requested Resolution:
  A pro-rated cancellation and refund of the unused $2,100 Total Loss Protection Plan.
  

  If no common ground can be found:
  Thorough regulatory review of CARco/AutoShields administrative and disclosure practices, and dealership compensation arrangements.
  A regulatory directive requiring CARco/AutoShield to update all consumer-facing documentation with accurate, clear cancellation terms and valid contact information.
  

  Thank you for your continued attention to these critical consumer protection concerns. I remain available for further discussion or clarification.

  Regards,
  Abdullo Akhadov

  Business Response

  Date: 07/07/2025

  Please accept the below response to the Rebuttal submitted by Abdullo ******* in connection with his Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau identified as Complaint ID ******** (the Complaint).  As our initial response to the original Complaint was detailed and addressed all issues raised in that Complaint, I will only address Mr. *******s Rebuttal in this Response.    
  
  As an initial matter, I will note that the substance of Mr. *******s Complaint and Rebuttal in its entirety seems to be his dissatisfaction with the contract terms of the Total Loss Protection (***) product he purchased in connection with the purchase of his 2024 ****** 4Runner on October 13, 2024 from *************** in **************** *********  As noted in AutoShields initial response to the original Complaint, the *** product is not cancellable after it is purchased.  Accordingly,nowhere in the *** Agreement that Mr. ******* signed does it indicate that there is any right to cancel the purchase of the *** product after it is purchased.   
  
  However, Mr. ******* asserts that because the dealership also showed him a brochure for the ****** Guaranteed Asset Protection plan, which indicates that product can be cancelled after purchase,the terms of that agreement should also apply to the AutoShield *** product.  He continues to assert this position,despite that fact that the ****** GAP program is a completely different and separate program from AutoShields *** program, and is sold and administered by ****** (or some affiliate entity of ******) which is not affiliated in any way with AutoShield.  This position is simply contrary to both the law and to a common sense understanding of contracts.     
  
  In connection with this response, I will address the specific items listed in ********************* as they were presented. 
  
  1. Ambiguous and Misleading Administrator Identity

  As set forth in his initial Complaint and in his Rebuttal, Mr. ******* has filed his Complaint against Comprehensive Auto Resources Company****** (CARco).  As I pointed out in AutoShields response to the Complaint, the *** program Mr. ******* purchased is sold and administered by *********** not CARco, as evidenced by the fact that CARco is not referenced anywhere on the *** Agreement entered into by Mr. ******** nor does CARco have any roll in selling or administering this product according to the terms of the *** Agreement.    
  
  The *** product is provided, sold,and administered by *********** as set forth explicitly on the *** Agreement executed by Mr. ************** In his Complaint, Mr. ******* alleges that CARco is the Administrator of the AutoShield *** product.  However, **********s *** Agreement, explicitly states that ********** is itself the Administrator in the Definitions section of the *** Agreement. 
  
  AutoShield is a properly registered fictitious name for *********** (AutoShield), which is a Pennsylvania corporation which conducts business across the country, where permitted and properly authorized.  While CARco shares common ownership with ********** and operates from the same building, CARco has no connection to the sale or administration of Mr. *******s *** purchase, nor does CARco sell or provide services for the *** program in any jurisdiction or locale.
  
  Mr. ******* seems to allege in his Rebuttal that the fact that AutoShield and CARco share common ownership and some administrative functions, that this evidence that CARco is effectively responsible for this *** product, and its assertion that AutoShield is the appropriate entity for this product is part of some effort to escape responsibility.  This is simply absurd.  As noted previously CARco is a totally separate legal entity from *********** and has no role in the business conducted by *********** including the creation, sale, or administration of the *** product or any other AutoShield products or services. 
  
  Mr. ******* filed his Complaint naming the incorrect legal entity.  However, AutoShield made no effort to escape responsibility, and in fact issued a response to Mr. ************** Both CARco and AutoShield are properly functioning and capitalized legal entities, which provide different products and services to various customers across the **************  This is a fairly common business model in order to separate various lines of business between various entities under common ownership, in order to allow each entity to function separately in its operations. 
  
  These entities are legally separate entities, but both comply with all legal requirements in order to market, sell,and administer their respective products.  In informing Mr. ******* that ********** is the entity responsible for the *** Product he purchased (which is also explicitly set forth on the *** Agreement) AutoShield was not and is not attempting to evade responsibility, it is in fact asserting that it is the responsible entity, and as such it responded to all of Mr. *******s phone calls, which were made to the telephone number for AutoShield, and then it responded at length to Mr. *******s Complaints filed with the BBB, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, and the ****************************************** 
  
  I do not know or understand why Mr. ******* maintains some fixation on CARco, which is not mentioned anywhere on his *** Agreement.  But there is no ambiguity with regard to the administrator the *** program in the *** Agreement, nor has any misleading information been provided to Mr. ******* is response to any of his communications.  Moreover, ********** has and continues to stand behind its products.   
  
  2. Contradictory Communications and Ambiguous Cancellation Terms

  The main thrust of Mr. *******s Complaint seems to be that the *** program is not a cancellable program, which he alleges is somehow contradictory or ambiguous.  In support of this assertion, he effectively alleges:

  a. that if a contract does not say it cannot be cancelled, then it must be cancellable at the election of one party to the contract;
  b. that because the dealership who sold him the *** program also showed him a brochure for a ****** GAP program which was cancellable it was reasonable to assume its terms applied to the AutoShield *** program; and
  c. industry norms and comparable CARco products (which as noted above is not affiliated with this product) indicate that other GAP products are cancellable, so its reasonable to assume *** is cancellable.
  

  Mr. *******s initial assertion that any contract that doesnt state it cannot be cancelled is cancellable at will at the election of one party to the contract is simply contrary to all established contract law in the ************** *************** and *************  As a matter of law, all contracts are governed by their specific terms (so long as they comply with the law of the state in which they are sold) and if a cancellation option is not present, it does not exist.  This effectively acknowledge the binding nature of contracts pursuant to the terms set forth in the contracts themselves.  Accordingly,the fact that there is no cancellation language in the *** Agreement does not create a right to cancel as a matter of law in any jurisdiction. 
  
  Mr. Akhavov then asserts that because ******* official GAP plans, which were offered to him for purchase, are cancellable under the terms of that GAP Agreement, then it was reasonable for him to assume the AutoShield *** program (which is a completely different product, offered by a company with no affiliation with ******, and with an entirely different agreement) was similarly cancellable.  This position has no legal support at all, and even as he makes this assertion, he acknowledges that the ****** GAP plan he is referencing has no connection to AutoShield or its *** program.    
  
  Accordingly, his assertion seems to be that because one product offered to him by ****** in connection with his purchase of his Vehicle was explicitly advertised as being fully cancellable,then he was justified in assuming that the *** program, which is a wholly different program than a GAP waiver and is offered by a completely separate company, must also be cancellable.  He then asserts that because the terms contained in the ****** GAP Waiver differ from the terms in the AutoShield *** program, the *** program terms are somehow ambiguous or misleading.  
  
  It is difficult to follow the logic of this argument, as he is effectively arguing that the AutoShield *** Agreement is ambiguous and misleading because it contains different terms than the ****** GAP Waiver program which was presented to him during the purchase of his vehicle.  This argument is simply illogical, because he is effectively asserting that a separate agreement from a different company somehow creates ambiguity in the AutoShield *** Agreement.  This is directly contrary to any contract law in ********* ************ and everywhere else. 
  
  Further, based on the information ********** actually presents, it also seems as though the opposite conclusion is more plausible.  He notes in his Complaint that the ****** GAP brochure explicitly states that it is cancellable, which is accurate as this information is explicitly set forth in the ****** GAP brochure attached to Mr. *******s Complaint.  He further notes that the AutoShield *** program documentation has no such language.  A much more logical inference from that information alone, would be that the *** program is not cancellable,as this language from the ****** GAP brochure is not present in the *** Agreement.  Additionally, the mere fact that another product from another vendor has different terms and conditions in no way makes the AutoShield *** program ambiguous or misleading, and any such assertion stretches credulity.    
  
  Similarly, Mr. *******s argument that because CARcos GAP waivers and other industry GAP waivers are cancellable,then the AutoShield *** program should also be cancellable, also fails.  Setting aside the CARco and AutoShield are separate entities as addressed above, as noted in AutoShields initial response, the *** program is not a GAP Waiver.  A GAP Waiver and the *** program are completely different in what they are offering, and more particularly in how they are regulated.  Under New York law (and most other states as well) GAP Waivers are highly regulated, and in almost every jurisdiction, they are required to be cancellable in order to approved by the various state authorities and lenders.  Accordingly, the ****** GAP waiver is cancellable not as a feature, but as a requirement of its approval and use.  In contrast, the *** program which is allowable for sale in ******** does not have this statutory/administrative requirement, because it is viewed as a much different product by the State of *********
  
  Accordingly, it is simply not reasonable to assume the terms of a GAP Waiver (particularly one offered by different entities) applies to the terms of the *** program Mr. ******* purchased.    
  
  3. Misrepresentation in the Sales Process
  

  Mr. ******* next argues that there is Misrepresentation in the Sales Process owing to the fact that the dealership which sold him the AutoShield *** program initially presented him with ******s GAP Waiver plan which clearly states that the ****** GAP program is cancellable.  Much of this argument has been address in reference to Mr. ******* initial assertion (including that ********** acknowledges that these are two separate products offered by different companies with no connection to one another), but it is worth noting here that ********** has no reasonable responsibility for any conduct of the dealership which sold Mr. ******* his vehicle, and the only representations or disclosures made by AutoShield were expressly contained in the AutoShield *** Agreement which Mr. ******* accepted and purchased.
  
  As noted above, Mr. ******* acknowledges that he was presented with a ****** GAP Waiver and the AutoShield *** Program during the sale of his Vehicle.  He argues that because the dealership did not explicitly tell him that the two completely separate agreements had different terms it was reasonable to assume they had the same terms.  As addressed above, this is simply incorrect. 
  
  He further acknowledges that he signed the AutoShield *** Agreement as part of the purchase of his vehicle, and he alleges that owing to the length of time he spent in the sales process, his ability to review the terms of the AutoShield *** Agreement was hindered.  This argument also fails for numerous reasons.  As an initial matter, AutoShield was not involved in this process, which was conducted by the dealership and Mr. ************** More importantly, Mr. ******* acknowledges he was presented with the AutoShield *** Agreement, which set forth its terms.  ************** was fatigued,bored, or impatient at that stage of the sale, and chose not to review the terms of the AutoShield *** Agreement, he is responsible for that decision.  Mr. ******* does not allege that at any point anyone presented him with any information on the AutoShield *** program which suggested it was a cancellable product.  Accordingly, there is no reasonable argument that AutoShield misrepresented anything about its *** program in connection with Mr. *******s purchase.    
  
  4. Potential Systemic Issues and Consumer Exploitation
  

  Finally, Mr. ******* asserts that there is Potential Systemic Issues and Consumer Exploitation owing to the ambiguous disclosures and potential dealership incentives for promoting non-cancellable products in the AutoShield *** program.  He further alleges that CARco/AutoShield routinely represent themselves as administrators yet disclaim responsibility when challenged.    
  
  AutoShield has addressed most of the specific assertions of wrongdoing above, but it worth noting that Mr. ******* acknowledges in this assertion that the AutoShield *** program is non-cancellable.  As a practical matter, the dealership is incentivized to sell Vehicle Protection Products, because as any business does,they are in fact selling products in order to make money.  This is true of both the ****** GAP program and the AutoShield *** Program, and any other vehicle programs sold by a dealership.  But that fact that they are selling a product for compensation does not make it improper, nor does the fact that the *** program they are marketing is non-cancellable suggest there is consumer exploitation.  AutoShield has addressed **********s claims of ambiguity in the *** Agreement in detail above, and as noted above, no such ambiguity exists. 
  
  Similarly, AutoShield fully acknowledges that it is the administrator of the *** program, and it has never disclaimed responsibility.  AutoShield merely informed Mr. ******* numerous times that as expressly set forth in the AutoShield *** Program, it is administrator of the program, and CARco is not associated with this program.  In so doing, AutoShield has addressed all of Mr. *******s complaints and allegations numerous times in numerous venues, and its position is both consistent and fully compliant with the terms of the AutoShield *** ********************* purchased and signed. 
  
  Mr. *******s unhappiness with his decision to purchase the AutoShield *** program does not create any wrongdoing on the part of AutoShield.  Nor does his failure to read and understand the AutoShield *** Agreement that he signed create any ambiguity or misrepresentations on the part of AutoShield.  Accordingly, this allegation falls apart along with the other allegations set forth in his Complaint and Rebuttal, as there is no reasonable argument that Mr. ******* or any other customers have been exploited.            
  
  Conclusion
  
  As set forth in detail above, there is nothing improper,misleading, or ambiguous about the AutoShield *** program.  All of the terms and conditions of the AutoShield *** program are set forth explicitly in the AutoShield *** Agreement, which ********** acknowledges was provided to him when he purchased this product. 
  
  As noted above, the AutoShield *** product is not a cancellable product after the agreement is signed and the product is purchased,and there is nothing in the AutoShield *** Agreement or the marketing of this product which would lead any reasonable person to believe this right is included in the *** Agreement.  **********s entire Complaint seems to be solely based on his assertion that because the ****** GAP Waiver program is cancellable, as explicitly set forth in the brochure for that product, then it was reasonable for him to assume that the terms of that product applied to the AutoShield *** program, which is a wholly different product, offered by a completely separate entity, and contained in a different contract.  This is simply not a reasonable position to take as a matter of fact, and it finds no support under the law.    
  
  I believe I have adequately addressed the errors made in Mr. *******s Consumer Complaint and his Rebuttal above, and effectively refuted his allegations that AutoShield failed in any regard to live up to its obligations under the *** Agreement.  Accordingly, at this point, ********** will consider this matter closed unless or until we receive any further communications or directions from the Better Business Bureau requesting additional information or initiating any proceeding involving AutoShield.
  
  As noted above, CARco has no connection to ********** or the AutoShield *** program.  Accordingly,it is a complete mystery to me as to why any claim was submitted against CARco.  Accordingly, CARco will rely on the above submitted statements as to any claims made against it in connection to the AutoShield *** program and Mr. *******s complaints related to that entity and that program.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/02/2025

  Type:Product 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.

  Started a GAP claim with them March 5th,2025, after my vehicle was considered a total loss on Feb 25, 2025. I had to email the claims administrator two times (April 3rd, 2025 no response from them and again April 9th) to follow up on my claim. Insurance had mailed their check to my lender and was received within 7 days. Carco however, well finally got a response via email on April 10th, stating a "Your claim has been paid and a check has been sent to your lender as of 4/3 by U.S. Mail. Please allow time for the check to arrive, ask your lender about their respective processing time, and please call in with any questions you have about your settlement." My lender processes same day they receive it. My loan was due on the 20th, still no payment from Carco received. Emailed them again April 21st to receive this reply- "Good morning, I reviewed with our accounting department and the lender has not received the check as of yet. I already verified that the address we submitted the check to was correct. We have to wait at least 30 days from the date we mailed to reissue as it takes time for **** to process the check via the mail and it also can take time for the lender to cash and process the check as well. If I were to stop pay and reissue the check now It would cause the 30-day waiting period to restart and the lender to likely get the cancelled check before that time period ends. This would cause the cancelled check to not be cashable and you would have to wait longer. I can check again with accounting in a few days to see if the check has reached its destination and in the mean time you should contact your lender to advise them that payment is being issued by gap and work with them on avoiding any potential late fees.Thank you,****** ***** is now May 2nd, ********************************************* "discuss my account".

  Business Response

  Date: 05/09/2025

  The check was originally mailed to a different address we had on file for the customer's lienholder.  The check was returned to us and we received it on 4/28/2025.  We re-mailed the check that same day (4/28/2025) to an updated address from the lienholder's website.  The check was received by the lienholder and deposited on 5/6/2025.  A copy of the deposited check is attached.  If there is anything else we can do, please let us know.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/25/2025

  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.

  This business is a ************* company and they were supposed to pay the remainder of my totaled vehicle. They only paid a certain amount leaving me to pay the rest.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/08/2025

  Per the definition of "Net Payoff", *** covers "the amounts, as of the Date of Loss, represented by the portion of Your unpaid balance, according to the original payment schedule of the Financing Contract that is secured by the Collateral, subject to the following limitations:  the amount does not include:  any unearned finance charges or loan charges; past due payments/skipped payments as described in the Financing Contract; late charges; uncollected service finance charges; refundable prepaid taxes and fees; disposition fees; termination fees; penalty fees; amounts that are added to the Financing Contract balance after the inception date; or the recoverable portion of finance service charges, financed amounts for unearned insurance premiums, or refundable charges (including, but not limited to credit life and vehicle service coverages/warranties) that are owed to You on the Date of Loss."  According to the customer's Finance Contract and payment history, a payment of $506.39 was due on the 24th of every month beginning on February 24, 2023.  By the time the loss occurred on January 31, 2025, 24 payments, a total of $12,153.36, were due.  However, $11,258.84 (about 22 payments) were made.  Therefore, *** does not cover the $894.52 past due amount.  In addition, $396.80 of the payments were made towards fees which are also not covered by *** per the definition of "Net Payoff".  It should also be noted that *** does not cover "amounts that are added to the Financing Contract balance after the inception date".  A $185.00 "Prepaid Finance Charge" was added to the loan balance which was separate from the monthly payment schedule.  $1,835.28 was also added to the loan balance on October 1, 2024 for "Collateral Protection Insurance".  All of these amounts were itemized on the attached claim calculation.  Unfortunately, as they are expressly excluded from the covered amount, they were not included in our *** settlement.  It should be noted, however, that the *************** Contract purchased with the loan should be canceled by the dealership if it has not been canceled already.  A prorated refund may be due which would be paid by the dealership to the lien holder.  An estimated refund quote of $1,095.77 was used to calculate the *** claim, but if the actual refund amount is less than that, the customer is welcome to submit proof of the amount refunded and we can revise the *** claim if necessary for a supplemental payment.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/24/2025

  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.

  I purchased ************* through CARCo in April of 2022. I was recently in an accident (not my fault) and my vehicle was toalled. CARCo was supposed to cover the leftover money owed, but have failed to do so, and the original leinholder is holding me responsible for what is left owed on the vehicle. This is completely unacceptable and is blatant theft as far as I am concerned, as I paid for their coverage, and now they are trying to avoid paying it and I am risking the money left over being put on my credit report. I called them on 3/24/25 and was kept on hold for almost an hour and was not contacted again. I want them to cover the claim and I want to be done with this, my accident was 2 months ago, and they are not holding up their end, and I cannot get them on the phone to even get the correct email address to send the paperwork (they keep requesting additional documents every time I send one in, further delaying the process). This is awful customer service and I want them to honor their policy. The accident was not my fault and it is unacceptable how they are avoiding me.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/25/2025

  I would like to cancel this complaint, I have resolved the issue with the business for the time being

  Business Response

  Date: 03/25/2025

  Mr. ****'s GAP claim was filed on 2/17/2025 by his lienholder, **************.  Since we had no contact with Mr. **** from the outset, we responded via email to the lienholder requesting the only required document that was missing, the buyer's order.  The next contact we had regarding the claim was on 3/24/2025 when Mr. **** called our office and was informed what was needed.  We received the buyer's order the next day, 3/25/2025 via email and processed the claim.  It is currently pending payment and the check will be issued and mailed to ************** within the next 2 business days.  If Mr. **** would like to provide any evidence that we ever requested anything other than the buyer's order, he is welcome to share it.  Otherwise, all our records show that his initial attempt to contact us was 3/24/2025 and his claim was finalized the very next day.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/26/2025

  [A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
  
  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. 
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* ****
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/11/2025

  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.

  On 10/07/2024 I filed a GAP claim with Carco due to the loss of my vehicle from flooding caused by Hurricane ******. This claim was ultimately denied due to what they claim is a violation of the contract terms. The wording on the contract is open to interpretation and, in my opinion, is done so intentionally to either deny claims with prejudice or entrap the claimant into making false statements and representations which could ultimately be determined to be fraudulent and thus result in denial of the claim. The specific contract term allegedly violated was "Exclusion I. Collateral used as an emergency vehicle, for livery or delivery, as a taxi, or for limousine or shuttle service where compensation for those services...". At the time of reviewing the addendum it was neither explained nor expressed that a total loss NOT occurring by participation in one of those activities would not be covered. My interpretation and unchallenged understanding was if you ***** for example, as the primary use of the vehicle and a total loss occurs, it would not be covered. My vehicle was primarily for and used as personal use. By the vague wording of the contract if you bought a car, delivered a single pizza in year one, and had a total loss in year 4 unrelated to pizza delivery, honest disclosure of having delivered a pizza would result in denial. Or if I took a family member to the emergency room of a hospital and they gave me gas money, then it is an emergency vehicle. It is my opinion that the contract is specifically structured for denial. Especially during a heavy causality event like a natural disaster. Furthermore, when challenged to provide a signed copy of the *** contract, one could not be produced by Carco. It was explained they only had an electronic copy.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/19/2025

  In reviewing the claim documents, it came to our attention that the customer averaged ****** miles/day with their vehicle which is consistent with commercial use.  In cases like these, we ask the customer to provide the reason for put so many miles on the vehicle each day.  **************** case, he checked "Yes" to the question "Was this vehicle used for transportation services such as ***** Lyft, or any other commercial delivery use?".  In response to the request for further detail, "If yes, what service is the vehicle used for?", he wrote "UBER".  The Mileage Disclosure Form is attached.  On page 2 of the *** Addendum (attached), "Commercial Use" is defined as "Collateral ... 4) being used by a Transportation Network Company".  Also on page 2, "Transportation Network Company" is defined as "an organization offering prearranged transportation services for compensation, using an online application or platform to connect passengers with drivers willing to transport them (***** Lyft, etc).".  On page 3 of the *** Addendum under "Exclusions", Exclusion I. states "Transportation Network Companies and share-the-expense car pools are not excluded under this policy, as long as the Commercial Use requirements are met".  Unfortunately the Commercial Use Option was not selected on page 1 of the *** Addendum and the appropriate premium was not remitted to CARco for such coverage.  The selection would have to have been indicated by the dealer at the time of sale and the dealer would have had to remit the appropriate surcharge to CARco for commercial use.  Therefore, since the Collateral was used for a Transportation Network Company without the Commercial Use requirements having been met, there was no coverage for the Collateral.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/06/2025

  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.

  To Whom It May Concern,I am writing to file a formal complaint against Carco ************* Company regarding their refusal to pay the remaining balance on my 2020 ****** Kicks car loan after my vehicle was totaled in an accident on July 9, 2024. Despite my primary insurance covering their portion, Carco ************* has only paid $15.30 on a remaining balance of $4,556.22.Carco's refusal to pay the full amount is based on their claim that I had some late payments with my finance company. However, I have consistently paid my car note, and my primary insurance has fulfilled their obligations. The remaining balance of $4,556.22 is supposed to be covered by the ************* that I purchased when I bought the car.This situation is causing significant financial strain, as the finance company is still waiting for the Gap balance to be paid by Carco. I believe this is a scam, and I fully intend to fight this unjust decision. I am seeking your assistance in resolving this matter and ensuring that Carco ************* fulfills their contractual obligations.Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.Sincerely,******** ******

  Business Response

  Date: 01/07/2025

  Unfortunately, per the terms of the *** Addendum, *** only covers the remaining balance "according to the original payment schedule".  In this case, when the loss occurred on 7/9/2024, there were 44 monthly payments of $494.16 due on the 7th of every month beginning on 12/7/2020.  However, according to the payment history provided by *********, only 38 of those originally scheduled payments were made.  There was a total of $3,010.76 in payments not made "according to the original payment schedule".  These missed payments also resulted in the accrual of unearned interest which is also not covered by ***.  Therefore, the balance at loss covered by *** was $10,988.61 minus the $10,915.31 insurance settlement minus the $58.00 "Condition Adjustment" deducted by **** for the prior condition of the vehicle.  *** also does not cover "any amounts deducted from the primary carrier settlement" such as condition adjustments.  That is why the *** payment of $15.30 was issued.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/10/2025

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
  
   Complaint: 22777232
  
  I am rejecting this response because: At the time of purchase for the vehicle Gap was purchased and factored into my financing. At the date of purchase the car was financed not paid in cash or full. At the date of the incident the vehicle was still under financing contract. The billing was monthly the 18th as each billing statement shows. The vehicle was not in repossession state therefore the contract was still current. The entire reason of *** is to cover the *** during a loss from what the insurance company will pay. USAA payment was the value and condition the date of incident on a current contract still being financed which is currently still past due because CARCO *** continues to be the awful company it is. EACH contact purchased from this company has been am embarrassment and completely loss for the consumer. The reviews are horrible and they are not trying to help the customer. All billing can be provided to support actual billing date, contact not being in a repossession state, and covered by insurance. Showing I did everything I was supposed to as a consumer. Im not satisfied with the payment from CARCO off $15.30 when the remaining balance is continually accumulating late fees. 
  
  
  Regards,
  
  ******** ******
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/15/2025

  We cannot change the numbers.  We already provided the EXACT numbers previously.  The *** payment is the *** payment as CLEARLY defined in the *** contract.  Here again are the numbers:  "Unfortunately, per the terms of the *** Addendum, *** only covers the remaining balance "according to the original payment schedule".  In this case, when the loss occurred on 7/9/2024, there were 44 monthly payments of $494.16 due on the 7th of every month beginning on 12/7/2020.  However, according to the payment history provided by *********, only 38 of those originally scheduled payments were made.  There was a total of $3,010.76 in payments not made "according to the original payment schedule".  These missed payments also resulted in the accrual of unearned interest which is also not covered by ***.  Therefore, the balance at loss covered by *** was $10,988.61 minus the $10,915.31 insurance settlement minus the $58.00 "Condition Adjustment" deducted by **** for the prior condition of the vehicle.  *** also does not cover "any amounts deducted from the primary carrier settlement" such as condition adjustments.  That is why the *** payment of $15.30 was issued.""

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/28/2024

  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 had purchased a 2019 *** 540i from a dealership last April and used CarCo as my gap company as the dealership provided them. A couple months after I had gotten into an accident and totaled out the car. My insurance company had already gotten to action to start the process of getting the financing company paid out without my notice. The dealership had been notified the car was totaled out as well. No one had notified me there was still a balance remaining on the account that the gap insurance was supposed to cover. I had been trying to purchase a new vehicle and found out the loan is still open. I contacted the gap insurance agent and submitted all the documentation from the purchase of my *** and from the accident to get the gap insurance to pay out. They responded back and let me know I didnt provided the bill of sale or the breakdown for the check that was issued. I contacted the dealership and financing company and neither of them had a bill of sale, both provided me the buyers order and purchase contract. The breakdown I submitted as well as a market valuation report about the specific car compared to others in the area. I have tried to call to receive an explanation but was left on hold for about 10 minutes before the computer told me no one was available and to call back. I want this account to be paid out so that I can get a new truck for work as I am very busy and need the space.

  Business Response

  Date: 01/08/2025

  After receiving all the required documents, the claim was processed on 12/18 and a check was issued and mailed on 12/20.  The customer should contact ********* to follow up for confirmation when they have received and applied the payment.  The customer is welcome to contact us if they would like further information regarding their completed claim.