American Auto Guardian

We received your June 29, 2020 email regarding the review posted by Karen *** regarding the denial of coverage for certain repairs to her 2015 Ford F-150 under her AutoGuard Vehicle Service Contract (“AutoGuard Contract”).
According to our records, American Auto Guardian (“AAGI”) was contacted by Community Ford on June 17, 2020 to start a claim for numerous problems with her vehicle. Ms. indicated that: the vehicle would not engage in four-wheel drive; the sunroof was hard to close; the rear sliding window was not operational; the vehicle would not come out of park; and the engine surged and stalled; however their technician could not duplicate the reported issues with either engaging four wheel drive, or with the engine surging and stalling. Community Ford indicated that the sunroof tracks needed lubrication and an adjustment; the rear sliding window assembly was needed; and the truck needed a new shifter assembly. No mention was made by Community Ford with regard to a front differential leak that Ms. describes in her review.
AAGI authorized the replacement of the truck’s shifter assembly (which included but was not solely the “leather boot” around the shifter), along with two days’ coverage for a rental vehicle, and explained to Community Ford that lubricating / adjusting the sunroof track and the rear sliding window were not covered under the terms of Ms.’s contract. Because the repair facility was unable to confirm the reported problems with the four-wheel drive or the engine surging and stalling, no coverage was authorized for these items.
Section A of Ms.’s AutoGuard Contract defines “BREAKDOWN” as “any covered part that fails to perform the main function that it was intended to perform due to a mechanical or electrical defect, or fails to perform within manufacturer’s specifications. A breakdown does not include a gradual reduction in operating performance due to normal wear and tear unless the amount of wear and tear exceeds the manufacturer’s specification.” Additionally, Exclusion 2 provides that adjustments, and glass / body and trim items are excluded from coverage.
With regard to the tear down/inspection of her vehicle, Section K. INSTRUCTION IN THE EVENT OF A BREAKDOWN, Paragraph 5 states that the contract holder must authorize the tear down / inspection of the vehicle to diagnose the cause of any failure and determine the cost of the repair.
In her review, Ms. also states that she did not file a claim for a navigation screen that failed several years ago and for which she paid over $1,000 to repair. AAGI was not given an opportunity to determine if coverage was available for that repair.
Based on the language of the AutoGuard Contract and the diagnosis of the repair facility, AAGI properly denied coverage to adjust / lubricate the sunroof tracks and the rear sliding window on Ms.’s vehicle. If the Ms. would like to have her claim re-assessed for potential coverage, we would be more than happy to coordinate with the repair facility to review the claim, or inspect the vehicle.

We received your January 29, 2020
email containing the complaint of Tony *** regarding the denial of coverage for repairs to his 2012 Chrysler Town &
Country under his AutoGuard Vehicle Service Contract (“AutoGuard Contract”). A review of American Auto Guardian’s
(“AAGI”) file indicates that Dan at Myron’s Service Center called AAGI on January
22, 2020 to start a claim because the vehicle’s check engine light and the
back-up monitor light were illuminated. Dan informed AAGI on January 24, 2020 that
his technician discovered that the bank 2 exhaust camshaft actuator had failed,
and a wiring repair was needed for the blind spot detection system. At that
time, we advised the repair facility that no repairs had been authorized and
that an inspection would be required to determine the cause of failure and the
extent of any damage.The
inspection report indicated that the back-up and blind spot sensors had
physical damage and evidence of water intrusion. The report also confirmed that
the bank 2 camshaft actuator had already been replaced at time of the
inspection. Mr. AutoGuard Contract clearly states in four different areas (the cover
page; in Section C, Your Responsibilities; Section H, Exclusion paragraph 1;
and Section I, What to do if you Break Down, Paragraph 1) that prior
authorization for repairs is required. In addition, Exclusion 2 under Section H
provides that any breakdown caused by “external forces, such as …accidents,
collision … water, water contamination…” are excluded from coverage. Also, Section I, Paragraph 3 states that the
contract holder must authorize the tear down of the vehicle if required by the
administrator (AAGI), and that an independent inspection may be made prior to
determining coverage.Based on the language of the AutoGuard
Contract and the inspection report, AAGI properly denied coverage for the
camshaft actuator and the wiring repair on Mr. vehicle.

We received your January 23, 2020
email containing the complaint of Robert D regarding the denial of coverage for repairs to his 2015 *** under his
*** Vehicle Service Contract (“*** Contract”). A review of American Auto Guardian,
Inc.’s (“AAGI”) file indicates that Matt at *** of Barrington ***C
called AAGI on January 3, 2020 to start a claim due to problems with the vehicle’s
retractable running boards. Matt told AAGI that both of the running boards were
binding. AAGI sent an independent inspector
to determine the cause of the failure and the extent of any damage. The inspector determined that the hinges
on the left side power running board had failed due to rust/corrosion, and that
the right side power running board was operating as designed.Exclusion
11 of Mr. D’s *** Contract provides that any breakdown caused by corrosion
or rust is not covered. Exclusion 23
excludes from coverage “components or parts which have not failed or resulted
in a BREAKDOWN, but which due to recommendation of the manufacturer or the
REPAIR FACILITY, require repair or replacement.”Based on the language of the AutoGuard
Vehicle Service Contract and the inspection report, AAGI properly denied
coverage for both power running boards on Mr. D’s vehicle.

We received your October 5, 2019 email containing the complaint of Laura *** regarding the denial of coverage for certain engine repairs to her 2012 *** under a *** Vehicle Service Contract (“Contract”) which is in her son’s name (Joe ***).

According to our records, Chris from *** Auto Sales contacted *** Auto Guardian, Inc. (“AAGI”) on August 7, 2019 to start a claim. Chris told AAGI that the vehicle was towed in to his dealership because it had overheated, and that the engine’s cylinder heads were warped. The odometer showed 95,122 miles when the vehicle was towed in. Our records also indicate that the cylinder head gaskets were replaced by *** Auto Sales on August 17, 2018 when the vehicle had 86,378 miles on the odometer. This repair came with a 12-month / 12,000-mile warranty from the repair facility.

AAGI sent an independent inspector to determine the cause of the failure and the extent of any damage. The independent inspector found that both cylinder heads and the engine block were distorted from continued operation while in an overheated condition. The inspector also verified that the cylinder head gaskets had failed.

The *** Vehicle Service Contract provides under Exclusion #6 that breakdowns covered by a repairer’s warranty are not covered. It also provides in Exclusion #18 that any failures due to overheating are excluded from coverage.

Based on the inspection report and the language of the *** Vehicle Service Contract, AAGI properly denied coverage for the cylinder heads and engine block repair.

We have received the September 19, 2019 Revdex.com email enclosing the complaint of Gopal *** regarding the non-payment of excess wear charges for the 2016 *** Camry he leased from Southeast *** Finance. American Auto Guardian, Inc. (“AAGI”) is the administrator of the excess wear contract Mr. purchased when he leased the vehicle.

In order to adjust excess wear and tear claims, AAGI requires color photos of the damage so that AAGI can confirm that the damage is as stated on the inspection reports. The black and white photos that were provided were not sufficiently clear to show the damage. Ultimately, we spoke with a representative from Southeast *** on September 12, 2019, who confirmed the damage. Based on the information provided, AAGI processed the claim in accordance with the terms of Mr. contract, and a settlement check in the amount of $119.47 was issued that day, payable to SE ***.

At the time of check issuance, Mr. Iver’s email providing proof of his payment to SE *** had not yet been attached to his file. In accordance with the terms of his excess wear contract, the check was sent to Southeast ***. Mr. should contact Southeast *** with regard to the overpayment and the refund due him.

We have received the Revdex.com July 29, 2019 email attaching the complaint of Michelle K regarding coverage for repairs to her 2012 *** GTI. American Auto Guardian, Inc. (“AAGI”) is the administrator of the *** Vehicle Service Contract that she purchased when she bought her vehicle.

Our records indicate that Phil from *** contacted AAGI on July 10, 2019 and stated the vehicle had been towed in because it would not start. AAGI told Phil to obtain Ms. K’s authorization to diagnose the cause of the failure and the extent of the damages, and to call us back with the findings. Phil called back on July 22, 2019 and said that the timing chain tensioner had failed.

AAGI sent an independent inspector to verify the cause of the failure and determine the extent of any damage. The inspector verified that the timing chain tensioner had failed, and that metal was also found in the oil pan. Due to the metal in the oil pan, the inspector concluded that further teardown of the engine was necessary in order to determine whether there was any internal damage.

Ms. K’s *** Vehicle Service Contract provides in Section I, “WHAT TO DO IF YOU BREAK DOWN” Paragraph #3: “If required by our administrator, authorize the repair facility to tear down your vehicle so that the repair facility can advise our administrator of the cause of the breakdown, and so that our administrator can inspect the vehicle to determine whether the breakdown is covered. Our administrator has the right to inspect your vehicle before determining coverage. IF THERE IS NO COVERAGE, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DIAGNOSTIC AND TEAR DOWN CHARGES.”

AAGI did not deny Ms. K’s claim, but was waiting for the teardown to be completed. We will contact *** to finalize the claim and authorize coverage according to the terms of the *** contract.

We received your March 15, 2019 e-mail containing the complaint of Vicki B regarding coverage for repairs to her 2013 *** Equinox. American Auto Guardian, Inc. (“AAGI”) is the administrator for the *** Vehicle Service Contract Ms. B purchased at the time she bought her vehicle.

A review of AAGI’s file indicates that Kayleigh at *** called AAGI on March 4, 2019 to start a claim due to an internal engine failure that caused low compression on the left side of the engine. She stated that the engine had to be disassembled to determine the exact cause of the failure. AAGI informed Kayleigh that the teardown needed to be authorized by the contract holder per the terms of Ms. B’ *** Contract. Kayleigh advised on March 6 that the cylinder heads had been removed and that the vehicle’s valves were not sealing properly due to carbon buildup. AAGI sent an independent inspector to verify the failures and the extent of any damage.

AAGI uses independent inspection companies to determine the cause of any failures and the extent of any damages. This is done in order to confirm that the recommended repairs are necessary, and so that AAGI can determine if there is coverage. The inspection companies are licensed, and are independent of, and have no affiliation with, AAGI.

The independent inspector confirmed that the vehicle’s intake and exhaust valves were not sealing properly due to carbon buildup. Failures due to carbon are not covered under Exclusion No. 26 of the *** Contract. AAGI called the repair facility and explained the denial for the engine repair. The contract holder called AAGI on March 8, 2016 to dispute the findings. A second inspection by a different inspector reached the same conclusion.

Ms. B indicated that she received only a one-page contract at the time she purchased her vehicle. However, her *** Contract is a multipage document which contains the full terms and conditions of her contract. Also, the front page references other sections of the contract not contained on the front page, so it is clear that the contract contained multiple pages.

The dealer that sold the *** Contract to Ms. B is an independent company, and is not owned or controlled by AAGI. AAGI was not present at the sale of the vehicle or the *** Contract. If Ms. B did not receive the full contract, she should address that matter with her dealer.

Based on the language of the *** Vehicle Service Contract and the inspection reports, AAGI properly denied the claim because failures due to carbon buildup are not covered.

Our records indicate that the inspection reports regarding Ms. B claim were mailed on March 25, 2019. We have requested that the reports be e-mailed to her at the address she provided.

We have received the Revdex.com email enclosing the complaint of Samir *** regarding the expiration of his AutoGuard Vehicle Service Contract.

Mr. purchased Ultimate Coverage with a wrap vehicle term of 84 months or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. Mr. claims that the coverage term of his contract began on May 28, 2012, the date he purchased his vehicle, and expires 84 months later, on May 28, 2019.

However, the definition of wrap vehicle term in Mr.’s vehicle service contract clearly states that the term begins on the vehicle’s in-service date. Our records show the in-service date to be January 1, 2011. Therefore, the contract expired on December 31, 2017, or 17 months earlier than Mr.’s calculation.

Nonetheless, as a matter of compromise and settlement, and without in any manner admitting liability, we will, as Mr. requests, pro rate the purchase price of his service contract as if he had purchased 67 months of coverage, instead of 84 months. This means that the purchase price should have been 80% of the price he paid, so a refund of 20% of $2,440, or $488, will be sent to the lienholder if the loan has not been paid in full. If Mr.’s lienholder has been paid in full, we request that Mr. send proof of payment so that the refund can be paid to him.

We have received the December 11, 2018 Revdex.com email enclosing the complaint of *** regarding the cancellation of his vehicle service contract.

According to our records, *** at the selling dealership, Northeast Motor Cars, Inc., sent an electronic Wheelz vehicle service contract to AAGI at 4:59 pm on April 19, 2017, and then voided the contract 43 minutes later. Please note that AAGI did not cancel the contract. Rather, the dealership voided the contract. AAGI has no information on why the contract was voided.

In addition, AAGI never received any payment for the vehicle service contract. The Retail Installment Contract for the vehicle does not show that a vehicle service contract was financed. Also, although Mr. provided a withdrawal slip showing that he purchased a cashier’s check in the amount of $2,800.00 payable to Streamline Associates, as mentioned above, AAGI has never received any payment for the vehicle service contract.

Mr. should contact the dealership and/or *** to determine why his vehicle service contract was voided and why no funds were remitted to AAGI.

Respectfully, AAGI does not control the dealer, and the dealer is not AAGI’s agent. Moreover, no payment was made to the dealer. Payment was made to an entity called Streamline Associates. Again, Mr. should pursue the dealer and/or Streamline, the entities with which he had direct dealings. In addition, because the contract was voided by the dealer, it is the dealer’s responsibility to notify its customer about the termination of the contract.

Mr. J filed his GAP claim with ***n, Inc. (“AAGI”) on October 5, 2018. AAGI did not receive all of the required paperwork until November 19, 2018. AAGI issued a check to Mr. J’ lender for his GAP claim on November 29, 2018. We would like to point out that Mr. J paid only $506 for his GAP coverage, not $3,500, and received a benefit totaling almost $1,600. We are disappointed that Mr. J is unhappy with our service, but would like to also note that his GAP claim was paid ten (10) days after all his paperwork was received.

In response to the review of American Auto Guardian, Inc. (“AAGI”) posted by Mr. G, we have reviewed our files regarding his GAP claim for the total loss of his *** 500 ***, and we have responded to Mr. G separately with a detailed letter. In summary, if Mr. G made all of his loan payments, at the time of the total loss of his vehicle, he owed $12,376.28. The insurance company paid $8,567.00 to the lender. The dealer pays $2,236.49 and $684.23, respectively, for vehicle service contract and GAP waiver refunds. There was also a subtraction of $32 from the benefit payment due to a condition adjustment as to the value of the vehicle. After the above amounts were deducted from the amount due to the lender, the GAP benefit payable to the lender was $856.54.
It should be noted that the Net Payoff amount is based upon the original payment schedule under the finance contract, and any accrued interest, late fees, missed payments, and condition adjustments are not covered. Therefore, GAP coverage does not necessarily cover the entire loan balance due at the time of loss if loan payments are not timely made.
There were delays in Mr. G obtaining the correct required documents, however once those documents were finally received by AAGI, payment was made within a week.

In response to the review of American Auto Guardian, Inc. (“AAGI”) posted by Mr. M, we have examined our files regarding his excess wear and tear (“***”) claim for his 2015 ***.
Our records indicate a claim for excess wear and tear charges was started on July 23, 2018, and the required documents for the claim were received from Mr. M on August 25. However, there was a discrepancy between the *** charges shown on *** Credit’s invoice, which totaled $275.07, and the amount shown on the Inspection Report, which totaled $423.00. On September 11, 2018, AAGI finally received a corrected invoice from *** Credit that showed that the actual excess wear and tear charges were $423.00.
After subtracting the $250.00 deductible, Mr. M will be reimbursed $173.00, which is the remaining balance of the *** charges billed. The check will be mailed to Mr. M on September 13.
AAGI finalized Mr. M’s claim as soon as we received the corrected information from *** Credit. Although not responsible for any delay, we apologize for any inconvenience the delays may have caused.

We have received the August 1, 2018 Revdex.com email enclosing the complaint of *** regarding the coverage for suspension repairs to her 2011 Lincoln Town Car.

A review of American Auto Guardian, Inc.’s (“AAGI”) file indicates that *** at *** called AAGI on July 26, 2018 to start a claim, and stated that the upper control arm bushings of Ms. vehicle had failed and needed to be replaced. AAGI authorized the repairs per the terms of Ms. Wheelz Vehicle Service Contract, which provides that the “reasonable cost of pre-authorized repairs” will be covered. The parts were authorized at $281.98 (plus 6% sales tax of $16.92), and the labor (including an alignment) was authorized at $302.19, for a total repair cost of $601.09. Ms. called AAGI on July 30, 2018 to review the amounts authorized, and was given those amounts.

However, the repair order AAGI received from *** on July 30, 2018 showed a charge of only $222.68 for the control arms, which is $59.30 less than amount initially quoted by Firestone. This reduced the repair cost to $538.23, for a difference of $62.86 from the amount originally authorized, which is equal to the parts pricing difference plus 6% sales tax on that difference. After deducting Ms. $250.00 deductible, AAGI paid the repair facility the balance of $288.23.

AAGI only pays the amount actually charged for parts by the repair facility. Although the amount AAGI paid for the parts was less than the amount discussed with Ms., AAGI correctly paid the actual invoiced parts cost. No further amount is due.

AAGI is only required to pay for costs actually charged by the repair facility. In addition, AAGI could not tell from the discount that was set forth on the invoice that Ms. utilized a coupon that she had.

Nevertheless, as a matter of customer good will, AAGI will reimburse Ms. $62.86. She should receive a check for that amount shortly.

We received on February 26, 2018 the Revdex.com letter dated February 13, 2018 enclosing the complaint of Michelle *** regarding the denial of coverage for excess wear damage to her leased 2016 Chevrolet Traverse. AAGI, Inc. (“AAGI”) is the administrator for Ms.’s XS Wear Waiver (“EWT Waiver”).

A review of AAGI’s file indicates that Ms.’s leased vehicle was turned in on October 30, 2017, and an independent inspection was ordered by her lienholder, GM Financial, at that time. The inspector found that the rear bumper was cracked and dented/dinged, and concluded that the cost of repair (including parts and labor) was $1,045.23.

Exclusion #4 of Ms.’s EWT Waiver excludes from coverage: “Any charge for a single item of excess wear and tear using the excess wear standard described in the lease that is $1,000 or more…”

Based upon the findings shown on the inspection report and the language of Ms.’s EWT Waiver, AAGI properly denied coverage for the damaged bumper on Ms.’s vehicle because the damage exceeded $1,000.

We have received the Revdex.com email dated January 28, 2018 enclosing the complaint of *** regarding coverage for repairs to his 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt.

A review of American Auto Guardian, Inc.’s (“AAGI”) file indicates that *** at *** Muffler had called AAGI on January 10, 2018 to start a claim because of an unusual engine noise. An independent inspector was sent to determine the cause of the problem and the extent of any damages. The inspector found that the engine had suffered a failure to the #1 connecting rod bearing and scoring of the crankshaft journal due to a lack of lubrication. AAGI denied the claim pursuant to Exclusion 18 for failure to maintain a proper level of lubricants.

However, as a matter of compromise, settlement and customer goodwill, and without in any way admitting liability, AAGI has determined to cover Mr. claim subject to the limits of liability.

We have received the Revdex.com email dated January 25, 2018 enclosing the complaint of *** requesting coverage for repairs to her 2008 Dodge Ram 3500 under her Wheelz Vehicle Service Contract.

A review of American Auto Guardian, Inc.’s (“AAGI”) file indicates that *** at Boyd Chrysler/ Dodge/Jeep of South Hill called AAGI on November 15, 2017 to start a claim because the vehicle’s transmission did not shift properly. An independent inspector was sent to determine the cause of the problem and the extent of any damage. The inspector found that the transmission had a broken plate on the side of the valve body due to improper disassembly by the repair facility. The Wheelz Contract provides in Exclusion 19 that breakdowns due to improper repairs are excluded from coverage.

Ms. purchased the Powertrain Plus (PTP) coverage under her Wheelz Contract. The Wheelz Contract is a multipage document. In the text on the first page, below the Optional Coverages/Surcharges section and above the signature line, it states: “PLEASE READ THIS VEHICLE SERVICE CONTRACT CAREFULLY, including the terms and conditions on the attached pages. It contains the entire agreement between you and us, and supersedes any oral or written statements made to you with respect to the amount of coverage to which you are entitled.…BY SIGNING BELOW, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS VEHICL SERVICE CONTRACT, AND THAT I AM NOT RELYING ON ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE NOT CONTAINED HEREIN.”

Section A, “DEFINITIONS,” of Ms.’s Wheelz Contract provides under Limits of Liability that, “If the Optional PTP ACV Surcharge Box has not been checked on the front page and the appropriate surcharge has not been paid…then Powertrain Plus terms of 24 months or greater have a $3,500 limit of liability.” The PTP ACV Surcharge Box was not checked, nor was the surcharge paid. Therefore, the limit of liability is $3,500.

Based on the language of the Wheelz Vehicle Service Contract and the inspection report, AAGI could have properly denied coverage of the claim under Exclusion 19. However, as a matter of good will and without admitting any liability, AAGI determined to provide coverage up to the limits of liability.

Although Ms. contends that there is nothing in her contract that provides “any kind of ceiling or limit or cap with regard to coverage amounts,” as stated above that is not the case. The first page of the Wheelz Contract states that it is a multipage document, and that she has read and understands all the terms and conditions. If Ms. did not receive the entire Wheelz Contract, she should contact the dealer. AAGI was not present at the transaction, and the dealer is an independent company over which AAGI has no control.

We have received the Revdex.com email dated January 10, 2018 enclosing the complaint of *** regarding the denial of coverage for certain repairs to his 2009 Dodge RAM under his AutoGuard Limited Warranty.

A review of American Auto Guardian, Inc.’s (“AAGI”) file indicates that *** at *** Chrysler called AAGI on October 13, 2017 regarding coverage for the Dodge RAM’s exhaust manifold, exhaust manifold gasket, and the fasteners for the exhaust manifold. AAGI told *** that the exhaust manifold and manifold gasket were covered items, but that the fasteners were not. AAGI also told *** that the AutoGuard Limited Warranty excludes from coverage any covered part that fails due to the failure of a non-covered part. *** informed AAGI that he was not ready to start a claim at that time.

On December 20, 2017, *** from *** Chrysler Dodge Jeep contacted AAGI to start a claim because a ticking noise was coming from the engine area. Even though Mr. AutoGuard Limited Warranty had expired on November 23, 2017, AAGI started a claim because of the October 13, 2017 conversation with ***.

AAGI sent an independent inspector to determine the cause of the noise and the extent of any damages. The inspector found that the vehicle had multiple broken fasteners on both exhaust manifolds. The inspector’s report stated that the cause of the failure was “breakage of various exhaust studs and bolts resulting in the leakage of exhaust gases. This also resulted in warped manifold as a result of the uneven clamping forces on the manifolds.”

Mr. AutoGuard 3 Months/3,000 Miles Powertrain Limited Warranty provides in Section F, List of Covered Parts, that “COVERAGE IS LIMITED TO THE PARTS LISTED UNDER THE POWERTRAIN COVERAGE.” The fasteners are not listed as covered items under Section F. Additionally, the Limited Warranty provides in Exclusion 2 that breakdowns caused by the failure of non-covered parts are not covered.

Based on the language of the AutoGuard Limited Warranty and the inspection report, AAGI properly denied coverage for the exhaust manifold fasteners and exhaust manifolds.

The claim was not denied at *** Chrysler, as the repair facility indicated that it did not want to start a claim at that time. More than 2 months passed before Mr. brought the vehicle to *** Chrysler to start a claim. As indicated above, even though his Limited Warranty had expired, AAGI still considered his claim. The inspection report and the plain language of the warranty showed that the claim was not covered.