Fox Concrete

December 22, 2015VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #***CHEVY TAHOE VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: C-***Dear Ms***I am in receipt of the customer's letter to you regarding our responseAlthough the customer’s claim has been closed by the Revdex.com, CARS would like to assure the customer that moving forward should his vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service ContractIf the failed component is covered under the Service Contract, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract.CARS supports the customer contacting the Revdex.com regarding his concerns and appreciates the opportunity to respond.Sincerely,Jason P*** General Counsel

VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE*** ***Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #***MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***I am in receipt of your letter dated, October 13, 2016, enclosing the consumer's additional complaint.On September 23, at 1:p.m., in a recorded telephone call the customer advised CARS that during the test drive his vehicle experienced issues shifting into gearThe customer advised that he thought the shifting issue was a fluke; however, the shifting issue started again.By the customer's signature on his service contract application, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to its Terms and ConditionsDirectly above the customer’s signature, it states: “This Service Contract does NOT go Into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS"), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase." Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are NOT coveredCARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase."As stated previously, the customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on September 23, 2016, that his vehicle experienced shifting issues during the test drive of his vehicle which was prior to CARS acceptance of his Service Contract on July 21, 2016.When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service ContractCARS relies on the information provided to us when we originally speak to the customer because we have found this to be the most reliable informationAs stated in the above paragraphs, the customer's vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the September 23, transmission/clutch claim because the customer informed us that the transmission/clutch issues were present prior to CARS' acceptance with payment of the customer's Service Contract.If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason P*** General Counsel

October 26, 2017VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE*** ***Revdex.com of Western PennsylvaniaHoliday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE: COMPLAINT ID#
*** AUDI A4 VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: *** Dear Ms***: I am in receipt of your letter dated October 20, 2017, stating the customer’s concerns and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on March 24, 2016, and on that same date the customer applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles). The customer’s Service Contract was approved with payment on March 28, (See attached “Service Contract”). On August 11, at 11:a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing engine issues. We then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility. On August 11, at 11:a.m., CARS attempted to telephone the repair facility twice and during each attempted call the phone rang over twenty (20) times with no answer. On August 11, at 2:p.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility and was advised that the customer’s vehicle was towed to the repair facility due to the engine locking. CARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility. CARS then advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s permission to tear-down her vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle. CARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract. On August 14, at 10:a.m., CARS returned a telephone call from the customer. CARS reviewed our claim procedures and rental benefits with the customer. CARS further advised the customer that we were waiting on the repair facility to provide us with the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle so that we could move forward with the August 11, engine claim. On September 13, 2017, CARS closed the August 11, engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle since there had been no communication for thirty (30) days between the repair facility and CARS. On September 27, at 11:a.m., CARS advised the customer that we were waiting on the repair facility to provide us with the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle so that we could move forward with August 11, engine claim. Our claims adjuster then provided his contact information to the customer. On October 9, at 5:p.m., CARS again advised the customer that we were waiting on the repair facility to provide us with the cause of failure and extent of damage to her vehicle so that we could move forward with the August 11, engine claim. On October 10, at 11:a.m., CARS left a message for our contact at the repair facility to telephone us regarding the customer’s engine claim. On October 10, at 2:p.m., the customer advised CARS that the repair facility told her that they have left three (3) messages for our claims adjuster to telephone the repair facility and the telephone calls have not been returned. Our claims adjuster advised the customer that he left a message with the repair facility for our contact there to telephone us; however, he still had not heard back from the repair facility. Our claims adjuster then transferred the customer to a claims manager. On October 10, at 2:p.m., CARS attempted to telephone the repair facility twice and during each attempted call the phone rang over twenty (20) times with no answer. On October 10, at 3:p.m., the repair facility advised a CARS’ claim manager that our contact regarding the August 11, engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, was not at the repair facility at that timeCARS requested that our contact telephone us. On October 10, at 3:p.m., a claims manager apologized to the customer for how she was spoken to by our claims adjuster during a telephone call that same day. The claims manager further advised that he had left a message for our contact at the repair facility to telephone him regarding moving forward with August 11, engine claimThe customer provided an alternative number for our contact at the repair facility. On October 10, at 3:p.m., our claims manager telephoned the alternative telephone number for our contact at the repair facility; however, the mailbox was full. On October 12, at 1:p.m., CARS again attempted to telephone our contact at the repair facility; however, there was no answer. On October 16, at 4:p.m., our claims director returned a telephone call from the customer and left a voice message with his contact information On October 26, at 1:p.m., our claims director attempted to telephone the repair facility; however, there was no answer. On October 26, at 2:p.m., our claims director left a message for our contact at the repair facility to telephone CARS; however, he was unavailable. On October 26, at 3:p.m., our claims director telephoned our contact at the repair facility using the alternative telephone number provided by the customer. Our repair facility contact advised CARS that the guides had caused the failure of the timing chain and there were bent valves; however, he could not provide us with the number of bent valves. Our contact person advised that the head was 90% off and it would need to be sent to a machine shop. Our claims director requested that an estimate be sent to his attention. Our contact advised that he would send an estimate to CARS on October 27, 2017. By the customer’s signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained thereinThe Service Contract states at Paragraph (c) and (e): “PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: “SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damageYou are responsible for these charges.” and “The repair facility MUST provide CARS with an estimate for the covered repair to obtain and Authorization number BEFORE any repairs have begun.” We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics for CARS to determine if the failed component was covered. This increases the probability that the vehicle will be repaired properly the first time. We are not requiring unnecessary teardown and diagnosis; we are only trying to determine the cause of failure. Here, the repair facility has never provided CARS with the cause of failure and extent of damage to the customer’s vehicle or an estimate for the repair of the customer’s vehicle. CARS would like to point out here that we have only been able to speak to our contact at the repair facility directly two (2) times (August 11, and October 26, 2017)CARS is unable to move forward with the August 11, engine claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle, without the cause of failure, extent of damage and an estimate. When CARS receives the estimate from the repair facility, we will promptly process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. CARS would like to apologize to the customer for our claim adjuster’s comments to her during an October 10, telephone call. CARS strongly believes that all of our customers should be treated with respect at all timesThis matter is being addressed by CARS’ management and we deeply regret that this incident occurred. The customer has Service Contract coverage on her vehicle through March 28, Should the customer’s vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claim. We honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jason ** M*** General Counsel JPM/jmmAttachments

March 22, TOYOTA TACOMA VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***:I am in receipt of your letter dated March 17, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on
February 28, On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 6, (See attached Service Contract].On March 16, at 1:p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility stating that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically for the left front ABS wheel speed sensor, right wheel speed sensor, lower control arms and boltsCARS then went over our claim procedures.On March 16, at 1:p.m., CARS left a message for the customer with our contact information.On March 16, at 2:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the ABS light was intermittently displayed and there were noises in the front endThe repair facility advised that the bushings were worn, the bolts were broken off the control arms, the sensors were seized and the lower joints were looseThe repair facility further advised that the sensors were rustedCARS then went over our claim procedures.On March 16, at 2:p.m., the customer's husband advised CARS that the vehicle was purchased on February 28, and he began to notice the issues with the vehicle about a week laterThe customer's husband also advised that the TPMS sensors were rusted off.On March 16, at 2:p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the repair of the TPMS sensors because the failure to the sensors was caused by rustCARS further advised that we could assist with the repair of the ball joint failure.CARS then went over the amount we could assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply two (2) control arms for $eachProDemand labor guidestated the total repair should take hours to complete, and repair facility's labor rate was $per hour for laborTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the control arm as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $to be used towards the specifically-authorized repairIf the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would be able to assist with the labor in the amount of $The repair facility advised they would get back to CARS with the customer's decision.On March 16, at 2:p.m., the customer's husband advised CARS that the selling dealer told him that his Service Contract was bumper to bumper with the exception of oil changesCARS advised that our service contracts were not bumper to bumper service contractsThe customer's husband advised that he was going to contact the selling dealer.On March 20, 2017, CARS processed a Service Contract Cancellation Form that was faxed to us from the customer (see attached).By the customer's signature on her Ultimate Value Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the her Service ContractIt states under Covered Components: “Damage from conditions of the environment, including rust and corrosion." Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the failure to sensors was caused by rust both verbally and in writing on the estimate they provided to CARS (See attached)As stated above, failures caused by rust are not available for coverage under the customer's Service ContractCARS was willing to move forward with the replacement of the control arms as stated above.Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its original decision as is not able to offer any assistance with the sensor portion March 16, mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle; however, we were willing to assist with the replacement of the control arms.Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.On March 22, 2017, CARS will issue a check to the customer's lienholder for the full amount that we received the dealer and advise the selling dealer of the amount he is responsible to send to the customer's lienholder.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason P***General CounselJPM/jmmAttachments

Ms***: Attached please find CARS' response. Thank you

March 28, 2018VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western PennsylvaniaHoliday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE: NISSAN
MAXIMA VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: *** Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.: *** Dear Ms***: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 26, 2018, enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the above-referenced vehicle. I would like to respond as follows: CARS’ records indicate that on February 22, 2018, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle. On that same day, the customer also applied for a Power Train Service Contract (Months/4,Miles). CARS received with payment and approved the customer’s Power Train Service Contract on March 1, 2018. (See attached Service Contract). On March 14, at 11:p.m., the customer advised CARS that the above-referenced vehicle had been experiencing issues since she left the dealer’s lot. The customer advised CARS that her vehicle experienced issues going from reverse into driveCARS reviewed CARS’ claims procedures with her. CARS then reviewed the $deductible and the additional costs that she would be responsible for paying. On March 26, at 9:a.m., a repair facility opened a mechanical claim on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. CARS then reviewed CARS’ claim procedures with the repair facility. On March 26, at 10:a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle only had first and second gears and the fluid was burnt. The repair facility advised CARS that they did attempt to flush out the transmission; however, the customer’s vehicle continued to experience difficulties. CARS advised the repair facility that CARS could not assist with the transmission claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle because the transmission issues where present on February 22, 2018, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 1, 2018. On March 26, at 10:a.m., CARS advised the customer that on March 14, 2018, she advised CARS that the issues with her vehicle began when she drove her vehicle off the dealer’s lot on February 22, 2018. CARS advised the customer that CARS could not assist with the transmission issues because the transmission issues were present on February 22, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 1, 2018. By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract application, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. Directly above the customer’s signature, it states: “I have read, understand, and agree to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions as stated on this entire Service Contract applicationThis Service Contract application does NOT go into effect until: (1) this completed application is received by CARS, (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which MAY BE DIFFERENT than My date of vehicle purchase.” Additionally, the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b) states: “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before the date CARS receives and approves this Service Contract application are not covered.” Here, as stated previously, on March 14, 2018, the customer advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle began to experience transmission issues on February 22, 2018, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on March 1, Based on the information provided by the customer, the customer’s vehicle began to experience issues prior to CARS acceptance of her Service Contract on March 1, 2018. CARS was not aware of any mechanical issues with the customer’s vehicle when CARS approved her Service Contract applicationCARS does not accept service contract applications if CARS is made aware of mechanical failures prior to CARS receiving and approving the service contract application with payment. If CARS had been made aware that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues prior to CARS’ acceptance of her Service Contract with payment on March 1, 2018, CARS would have rejected and sent back the customer’s Service Contract application with payment to the selling dealership. When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with any failures that were present prior to CARS’ acceptance of this Service Contract on March 1, 2018. For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. However, the customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through June 1, Should the customer’s vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service contract. When a claim is presented, CARS fully investigates the circumstances surrounding the claim. CARS honors every contract sold and stands behind CARS’ products 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely,Jason ** M***General Counsel JPM/jmm

*** *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania*** *** *** *** *** ** *** RE: COMPLAINT ID #*** DODGE JOURNEYVIN (Last 8): ***OUR FILE NO.: *** Dear Ms***: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 15,
and January 20, enclosing the above- referenced consumer complaints and respond as follows: On January 21, CARS telephoned the customer to explain the processing and the amount of her refundCARS now considers this matter resolved.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason PM***General Counsel

March 22, 2017I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: On February 14, 2017, the customerpurchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract
(Months/Unlimited Miles) and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on February 23, (the attached "Service Contract").On March 17, at 10:a.m., a repair facility contacted CARS advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing throttle body, variable valve timing actuator, cam actuator magnet, wiring harness, seal, cam position sensor and water pump gasketsCARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On March 17, at 11:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the check engine light and codes POOll, P0121, Pand Pwere displayedThe repair facility found trouble codes for the throttle body, camshaft variable actuator magnet, timing solenoid valve, cam position sensor and water pump gasketsCARS reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.CARS then went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: CARS advised that the throttle body, camshaft variable actuator magnet, timing solenoid valve, and water pump gaskets were not covered under the customer's Service ContractWe then went over the amount we could assist with the March 17, claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle as follows: CARS could supply the camshaft sensor for $and the fluids needed for the repair of the customer's vehicle in the amount of $ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $per hour for laborTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $to be used towards the specifically-authorized repairIf the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would be able to assist with the labor in the amount of $The repair facility advised that they would contact the customer for his decision.On March 17, at 3:p.mCARS reviewed the components that were covered under the customer's Service Contract for the March 17, mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicleThe customer advised that he would like to cancel his Service Contract.On March 17, at 4:p.mCARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract.On March 17, at 4:p.mCARS' office manager advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, he was not eligible for a refund of his Service Contract.By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractIt is stated in the Service Contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVE COMPONENTS." and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) and 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." Here, the throttle body, camshaft variable actuator magnet, timing solenoid valve, and water pump gaskets are not listed for coverage under the customer's Service ContractTherefore, it is the customer is responsibility to repair the throttle body, camshaft variable actuator magnet, timing solenoid valve, and water pump gaskets.CARS is still willing to assist with the repair of the customer's vehicleIf the customer would like to move forward with the replacement of the cams shaft sensor, please have the repair facility advise CARS if the customer would like CARS to supply the camshaft sensor or take the cash allowance to use towards the repair of his vehicle as stated above.In her consumer complaint the customer has requested a refund of his Service ContractThe customer's service contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph (a), (b) and (c): "CANCELLATION PROVISIONS: You may cancel this Service Contract for a full refund within the first days from the Effective Date provided no claim has been madeWithin the first days from the Effective Date, if a claim has been made You may cancel this Service Contract for a monthly prorated refund, less any claims paid or approved for payment, less and administrative fee of $After days from the Effective Date, there is no refund except in the case of a total loss, as determined by the insurance carrier or repossession by the lienholder and as long as no claim was madeIf eligible, CARS will cancel this Service Contract for monthly prorated refund, less an administrated fee of $50.00." Additionally, CARS is regulated on refund policies by each state that CARS conducts business in and we strictly adhere in those states where their statutes supersede our cancellation provisionsHere, pursuant to Ohio Law, the customer is not entitled to a refund.Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repairThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.The customer has Service Contract coverage on his vehicle through February 23, Should his vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the Service ContractIf the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Jason ** *** General Counsel

March 22, TOYOTA TACOMA VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***:I am in receipt of your letter dated March 17, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on
February 28, On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on March 6, (See attached Service Contract].On March 16, at 1:p.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility stating that the customer's vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues, specifically for the left front ABS wheel speed sensor, right wheel speed sensor, lower control arms and boltsCARS then went over our claim procedures.On March 16, at 1:p.m., CARS left a message for the customer with our contact information.On March 16, at 2:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the ABS light was intermittently displayed and there were noises in the front endThe repair facility advised that the bushings were worn, the bolts were broken off the control arms, the sensors were seized and the lower joints were looseThe repair facility further advised that the sensors were rustedCARS then went over our claim procedures.On March 16, at 2:p.m., the customer's husband advised CARS that the vehicle was purchased on February 28, and he began to notice the issues with the vehicle about a week laterThe customer's husband also advised that the TPMS sensors were rusted off.On March 16, at 2:p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that we were unable to assist with the repair of the TPMS sensors because the failure to the sensors was caused by rustCARS further advised that we could assist with the repair of the ball joint failure.CARS then went over the amount we could assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply two (2) control arms for $eachProDemand labor guidestated the total repair should take hours to complete, and repair facility's labor rate was $per hour for laborTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained to the repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim after the deductible was applied was $CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the control arm as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $to be used towards the specifically-authorized repairIf the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied part, CARS would be able to assist with the labor in the amount of $The repair facility advised they would get back to CARS with the customer's decision.On March 16, at 2:p.m., the customer's husband advised CARS that the selling dealer told him that his Service Contract was bumper to bumper with the exception of oil changesCARS advised that our service contracts were not bumper to bumper service contractsThe customer's husband advised that he was going to contact the selling dealer.On March 20, 2017, CARS processed a Service Contract Cancellation Form that was faxed to us from the customer (see attached).By the customer's signature on her Ultimate Value Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the her Service ContractIt states under Covered Components: “Damage from conditions of the environment, including rust and corrosion." Here, the repair facility advised CARS that the failure to sensors was caused by rust both verbally and in writing on the estimate they provided to CARS (See attached)As stated above, failures caused by rust are not available for coverage under the customer's Service ContractCARS was willing to move forward with the replacement of the control arms as stated above.Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its original decision as is not able to offer any assistance with the sensor portion March 16, mechanical claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle; however, we were willing to assist with the replacement of the control arms.Pursuant to the customer's service contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and the customer's financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.On March 22, 2017, CARS will issue a check to the customer's lienholder for the full amount that we received the dealer and advise the selling dealer of the amount he is responsible to send to the customer's lienholder.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason P***General CounselJPM/jmmAttachments

They have replaced the failed parts with used onesI understand that this is allowed by the contract however the first differential that they sent was defectiveIt was replaced by another used part that appears to be ok but still worn as it has play in it and "clunks" when placed in gear They also replaced the brake booster pump, which had also failed, with a used partMy mechanic was tasked with finding and installing that partIt worked for one day and has failed again - leaking brake fluid onto my garage floor and causing the brakes to "bleed off" when sitting with the brake pedal applied. I contacted my mechanic and have to take the vehicle back in for repair/replacement of the failed "used" part My vehicle has 76,miles on itThe used parts, that are being installed, are worn outI understand that it would be difficult to locate used parts with 76,miles or less on them! With that being said, if a used part cannot be located, with verified mileage less or equal to mine, then a new or remanufactured part should be used especially when that part controls the brake system! As long as worn out/used parts are provided, my vehicle is going to be in/out of the repair facility as this warranty still has 2+ years on it and unlimited mileage leftWith the exception of the front differential (which is clunking when placed in gear), my truck is in no better shape then when it was taken to be repairedIn fact, my vehicle did not leak ANY fluids prior to these used parts being installed.

VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE *** *** Revdex.com ofWestern Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA RE: COMPLAINT ID #*** FORD EXPLORER VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: *** Dear Ms*** I am in receipt of your letter
dated September 20, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintCARS would like to point out here that we have reviewed the details of the customer's consumer complaint on several occasions with her and the Department of Insurance in the customer’s state of residenceI would like to respond to the consumer complaint as follows: On May 18, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (Months/4,Miles)The customer's Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on May 20, (the attached Service Contract)On June 8, at 11:a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesCARS then went over our claim proceduresOn June 8, at 11:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was towed to the repair facility on June 6, because it was inoperableOur claims adjuster then again went over claim procedures in detail with the repair facilityWe also advised that the customer was responsible for any difference in labor rate, tax, fluid, filters, and deductible, diagnostic or teardown charges where applicable and any charges/expenses beyond what CARS authorizesWe also advised the repair facility to obtain the customer's permission to teardown/diagnose to the point of component failure and contact us with the repair facility’s findings/estimate prior to beginning any work on the vehicleOn June 8, at 1:p.m., in a recorded telephone call, the customer advised CARS that her vehicle was experiencing shifting issuesThe customer advised that the issues with her vehicle began on the date of purchase (May 18, 2016)The customer stated that her vehicle had to be towed to the dealer; however, when the vehicle was returned to her, the issues were still presentThe customer further advised that the throttle actuator was then replaced; however, the issues were still present.On June 9, at 9:a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that since the failures to the customer’s vehicle were present on the date of purchase May which was prior to CARS' acceptance of her Service Contract on May 20, CARS could not offer any assistance with the transmission repairsOn June 9, at 9:a.m., CARS left a voice message for the customer advising that CARS was unable to assist with the repair of her vehicleOn that same day, June 9, 2016, at 11:a.m., CARS returned a voice message from the repair facility and advised that the failures to the customer’s vehicle were present prior to Service Contract acceptance on May On June 14, 2016, CARS received an email from the customer with a work order from the dealer stating that the customer’s vehicle experienced a blown ERC fuse that prevented her vehicle from starting and that the fuse was replacedCARS reviewed the work order from the dealer, which shows the customer's vehicle being repaired between 5/13/and 5/19/The repairs performed during this time (replacement of the ECU Fuse) are not related to the transmission issues that existed with the vehicle prior to the date of contract acceptance on May 20, The replacement of the ECU Fuse is unrelated to the transmission issues which the customer stated were present from the date of purchaseBy the customer’s signature on her service contract application, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and ConditionsDirectly above the customer’s signature, it states: "This Service Contract does NOT go into effect until: (1) this service application is received by CARS Protection Plus ("CARS”), (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which may be different than my date of vehicle purchase." Additionally, under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before CARS Protection Plus, Inc("CARS") approves this Service Contract application are NOT coveredCARS does NOT warrant the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase." CARS service contract applications provide that they go in effect after they are received with payment, processed and approved by C.A.R.SProtection Plus, Inc., which may be different than the date of vehicle purchaseThe customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call on June 8, that the vehicle was experiencing shifting issues on the date of purchase, May which was prior to CARS acceptance of her Service Contract on May When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service ContractAs stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with the June 8, transmission claim because the transmission issues were present prior to CARS' acceptance with payment of the customer's Service ContractThe customer's Service Contract expired on August 20, The customer no longer has Service Contract coverage under any of CARS service contracts.For the reasons stated above, CARS stands behind our original decision and we are not able to assist with the June 8, transmission claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason ** *** General CounselJPM/jmmAttachments

June 20, 2016VIA: SUBMITTED TO Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #***CHRYSLER ASPEN VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***I am in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2016, enclosing the above-referenced consumer additional concernsI would like to respond in the following manner:As stated in our June 8, letter to you, on June 3, at 11:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer gave her permission to the repair facility to do diagnostics on her vehicle when the vehicle was brought to the repair facility.By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained thereinThe Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions 3(c): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: A proper diagnosis shall include tear-down to the point of component failure, performed by the repair facility, to determine the cause of failure and the extent of damageYou are responsible for all charges relating to the tear-down and diagnosis of the vehicle." We include teardown to the point of component failure in our diagnostics in order for CARS to determine if the failed component is coveredHere, the customer is responsible for all charges related to teardown/diagnosticsAny teardown/diagnostic costs are between the customer and the repair facility.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further question, please contract my office.Jason ** *** General CounselJPM/jmm

VIA: EMAIL THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITE*** ***Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #***CHRYSLER VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***:I am in receipt of your letter dated September 26, 2016, enclosing the
above-referenced consumer complaintwould like to respond in the following manner: On September 1, 2016, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (Months/4,Miles)The customer's Service Contract was accepted and approved by CARS on September 2, (the attached Service Contract).On September 21, at 1:p.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing transmission issues.On September 21, at 2:p.m., the customer advised CARS that she had been having mechanical issues with the vehicle since the purchase dateThe customer also stated that she did not notice any issues with the transmission except the "SES" illuminated with a transmission code.On September 21, at 4:p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer's vehicle was jerking on shifts and the code was P(i.espeed sensor)The repair facility originally stated that the vehicle needed a transmission control module (TCM)/Electro Hydraulic Control Unit, which included the input and output speed sensorsAccording to the repair facility, the module/unit could be purchased separate from the valve bodyCARS advised the repair facility that we would review the claim and get back to him.On that same date at 4:p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that the TCM/Electro Hydraulic Control Unit was a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract; therefore, CARS would be unable to assist with the repairThe repair facility was unhappy with CARS decision and requested to speak with a claims managerThe telephone call was then transferred.At 5:p.m., a claims manager reviewed the claim with the repair facilityThe repair facility stated that the failed part number was RL108213ABDuring that telephone call, the claims manager looked up the part number and advised the repair facility that the part number was for a valve bodyThe repair facility stated that the failed part was part of the valve body, but didn’t attach to the valve bodyThe repair facility then stated that it was the input and output speed sensors that needed replacedThe claims manager advised the repair facility that CARS would look into the claim and call him back.On September 22, at 11:a.m., after researching the components requiring repair and replacement on the customer's vehicle, CARS contacted the repair facility and requested that they provide CARS with the estimate for repair for clarification.After receiving the estimate, on September 22, at 1:p.m., CARS advised the repair facility the transmission in the customer's vehicle was a Merecedes brand and that the actual name of the part was a "conductor plate." The speed sensors are built into the conductor plate and can be serviced and sold separately from the valve bodyCARS also advised that the conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission; therefore, CARS would not be able to assist with the repair.CARS also confirmed with one of its parts suppliers that the speed sensors requiring repair on the customer's vehicle are built into the conductor plate and can be serviced and sold separately from the valve bodySee photograph of conductor plate attached for further clarification.On September 22, as 2:p.m., a claims manager again advised the repair facility that the part needed to be replaced on the customer’s vehicle was the conductor plate, with the speed sensors built inCARS also advised that since the conductor plate is not an internally lubricated part of the transmission, is not listed for coverage, and can be serviced and purchased separately from the valve body; CARS would be unable to assist with the repair under the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.By the customer's signature on her Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained thereinThe Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph (a): It is stated in your Service Contract under: "COVERED COMPONENTS" (AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION/TRANSFER CASE)Lubricated parts contained within the transmission or transfer case housing: torque converter; bands; pump; pump housing; carrier assembly; planetary gears; chain; drums; reaction shaft; governor; valve body; and servo assemblies..." In addition, at "Covered Components: "Coverage limited to above components." Also, under Term and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure."Here, the repair facility that the customer chose to repair her vehicle advised CARS that the input and output speed sensors were the only failure to the vehicleThe speed sensors are built into the conductor plate, which can be purchased separately from the valve body and are not an internally lubricated part of the transmissionTherefore, this repair is not covered under the customer's Power Train Service Contract.For the reasons stated above, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the September 21, claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Customer’s Service Contract.The customer has Service Contract coverage available through December 2, or 113,miles, whichever occurs firstShould the customer's vehicle incur future mechanical issues, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is coveredIf covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Power Train Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason ** *** General CounselJPM/cllAttachments

July 7,2016VIA: Submitted to Revdex.com website*** ***Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #***NISSAN ALTIMA VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***I am in receipt of your letter dated July 5, 2016, enclosing the
above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above- referenced vehicle on April 19, On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was approved by CARS on April 20, (See Attached Service Contract).On June 28, at 1:p.m., the customer advised CARS that the front passenger window was not workingCARS then advised the customer that window motor/switches are listed as covered components under his Service ContractCARS then reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage and our claim procedures with him.On June 29, at 11:a.m., CARS received a telephone call from a repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing right front window switch issuesCARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 29, at 3:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the right front window was inoperable due to the failure of the window switchCARS then reviewed our claim procedures with the repair facility.On June 29, at 3:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the cost of their replacement for the right front window switch would be $CARS advised the repair facility that ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract paid $per hour for labor; therefore, total labor was $CARS advised that the claim was also subject to a $deductibleCARS then explained that the total value of the claim was less than the deductible; therefore, CARS was unable to offer any assistance with the right front switch claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract,On June 29, at 4:p.m., the customer telephoned CARS to inquire about the window switch claimCARS then reviewed the claim with him in detail.On July 1, at 11:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that they had made an error and the left main window switch had failed not the right main window switchWe went over the amount we could authorize for the claim as follows: We could supply the left main windowswitch for $ProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $per hour for laborTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $71.82, and we could supply the parts as stated above; however, since the labor costs were less than the deductible, we were unable to assist with the cost of labor, or pay $towards the repair of the customer’s choiceThe repair facility advised that they would telephone us with the customer’s decision.On July 1, at 1:p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was unhappy with the claim allowance and that CARS quoted pricing for aftermarket partsCARS reviewed the customer's Service Contract with him regarding parts and labor.On July 1, at 1:p.m., the repair facility advised that the customer would like CARS to supply the left main window switchCARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract, the customer’s vehicle must stay at the repair facility until the repair was completedThe repair facility advised that they would call us back.On July 1, at 2:p.m., the customer called CARS to question if his vehicle had to stay at the repair facility until the repair was completedCARS advised that the customer’s vehicle would have to stay at the repair facility until the repair was complete and we were unable to assist with rental costsThe customer then began to yell using profanities until the telephone call was ended by CARS.On July 5, at 9:a.m., CARS telephoned the repair facility to get the status of the customer’s claimThe repair facility advised that the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility.By the customer’s signature on his Value Plus Service Contract he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractIt is stated in the Service Contract at Paragraph (Q: "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs.” When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement part we use the cost of the part to be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously statedIt is the customer's decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleHere, as stated above the customer had the option of taking the cash allowance of $towards the repair of his choice or having CARS supply the main window switchThe repair facility advised us that the customer would like the supplied part shipped to the repair facility. The customer's Service Contract states at (k): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: CARS will arrange for payment of the authorized repair, less related charges not covered by the Service Contract, less a $deductible per claim”Here, all claims opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicles will have the $deductible will be applied.The customer's Service Contract states under the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph (a): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURES: The vehicle must remain at the repair facility until repairs are complete.” Here during the processing of the June 29, mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle, CARS was willing to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle, however, the customer removed his vehicle from the repair facility.For all the reasons stated above, CARS is not able to offer any assistance with the June 29, mechanical claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle.If the customer would like to utilize his Service Contract towards the repair of the main window switch, a new claim must be opened on behalf of his vehicleCARS will process the claim in the same manner as the June 29, claim opened on behalf of the customer’s vehicle.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers’ vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive” coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer’s Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductible.The customer has Service Contract coverage through October 20, If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer’s Service ContractIf the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Sincerely,Jason ** ***General Counsel

RE: COMPLAINT ID #*** FORD EVIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: *** Dear Ms***: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 16, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaintI would like to respond in the following manner: On
November 1, 2013, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicleOn that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was accepted with payment by CARS on November 18, (the attached "Service Contract”)On September 14, at 3:p.m., the customer advised CARS that he was experiencing transmission issues with his vehicleCARS then reviewed our claims procedures and his Service Contract coverage with the customerOn September 14, at 3:p.m., CARS again reviewed the customer's Service Contract coverage with himOn September 14, at 4:p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising us that the customer's vehicle was experiencing transmission issuesCARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facilityOn September 14, at 4:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that there was no fourth gear in the customer's vehicleThe repair facility advised that there were no other concernsCARS advised the repair facility to obtain the customer’s authorization to tear-down his vehicle to the point of failure to verify the cause of failure and extent of damage to his vehicleCARS further advised that the customer was responsible for all tear-down/diagnostic charges pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractCARS further advised the repair facility that any repairs done without prior authorization would be denied by CARSCARS advised the repair facility to get back to CARS with their findingsOn September 16, the repair facility advised CARS in writing on their estimate for the repair of the customer's vehicle that the support snap ring failed causing damage to the rev drumOn September 16, at 10:a.m., we went over the amount CARS could authorize for the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: We could supply the transmission for $CARS was able to assist with the fluids needed for the repair of the customer’s vehicle in the amount of $Mitchell's OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays up to $per hour for laborTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained that the total value of the claim after the deductible was applied was $1,116.00, and we could supply the parts as stated above and pay $towards labor or pay $1,towards the repair of the customer's choiceWe also went over the shipping details with the repair facilityWe advised the repair facility to telephone CARS with the customer’s decisionOn September 16, at 11:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer chose to have CARS ship the transmission to the repair facilityCARS then advised that we would telephone the repair facility with an authorization number and estimated time of arrivalOn September 16, at 11:a.m., the claim adjustor advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract, he was not eligible for rental benefitsOn September 16, at 11:a.m., a claims manager reviewed the customer’s rental benefits with him pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractOn September 16, at 3:p.m., CARS provided an authorization number to the repair facility to begin the repairs to the customer's vehicleCARS further advised the repair facility that the estimated arrival date of the transmission was September 24, or September 25, By the customer's signature on his Value Plus Service Contract, the customer acknowledged that he read, understood, and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of his Service ContractThe customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the option to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, or aftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above-mentioned replacement parts we used the cost of the parts to either be shipped to the repair facility and to calculate the total amount of the claim as previously statedIt is the customer’s decision to either take the replacement part offered by CARS or the allowance towards the repair of the vehicleAny supplied parts we provide are tested and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new part when replacing a failed componentThe rental benefits of the customer's Service Contract state: "RENTAL BENEFITS The Service Contract Holder will be reimbursed $for each eight hours of Mitchell OnDemand labor guide time to repair or replace the covered component with a maximum benefit of $per claim, if proof of rental is providedDown time, regardless of reason, is not included.” Here, the September 14, transmission claim opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle was authorized for hours of labor to replace the transmission based on Mitchell OnDemand labor guide; therefore, the customer is not entitled to rental benefits under his Service ContractThe customer's Service Contract states at (m): "PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT: C.A.R.Swill not be responsible for any time lost, any inconvenience caused by the loss of use of your vehicle, the quality of the repair by the repair facility or for any other incidental or consequential damages you may have.” As you can see from the above paragraphs, CARS processed the transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle within two (2) business days and the shipping details were provided to the repair facilities that the customer could make a choice regarding his options for assistance from CARSIt states on the Service Contract under Labor: "The authorized time for a repair shall be based on the Mitchell OnDemand labor guideThe hourly labor rate will be the repair facility's rate up to $per hourShould your repair facility's rate exceed this amount, you are responsible for the difference.” We would like to point out here that when the September 14, claim was called in by the repair facility chosen by the customer to repair his vehicle, the repair facility advised CARS that the repair facility's labor rate was $dollars per hourMitchell’s OnDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take hours to complete, and the customer’s Service Contract pays $per hour for laborCARS authorized the claim pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the service contract and the customer is responsible for the differenceCARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair of customers' vehicles and do not provide "all inclusive" coverageTherefore, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is not required to pay the full cost of the repairsThe service contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and deductibleFor all of the reasons stated in the above paragraphs, CARS stands behind our decision regarding the September 14, transmission claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle and is unable to offer any further assistance with the claimThe customer has Service Contract coverage through November 18, If a claim is opened CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under the customer's Service ContractIf the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of his Value Plus Service Contract When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason ** ***General Counsel

April 19, 2018VIA: Revdex.com WEBSITE Revdex.com of Western PennsylvaniaHoliday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220 RE: GMC
ACADIA VIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: *** Revdex.com COMPLAINT NO.: *** Dear Ms***: CARS is in receipt of your letter dated April 12, 2018, enclosing the customer’s consumer complaint regarding the above-referenced vehicle. CARS would like to respond as follows: According to CARS’ records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on December 23, On that same date, the customer also applied for a CARS Power Train Service Contract (Months/7,Miles) and the same was received with payment and approved on January 9, 2018. (See attached “Service Contract”). On February 19, at 9:a.m., the customer advised CARS that her vehicle needed a new timing chain. CARS then reviewed the customer’s Service Contract coverage with her. On February 19, at 10:a.m., CARS advises all incoming telephone callers that their telephone call may be recordedThe customer advised CARS in a recorded telephone call that the timing chain issues were present on the date she purchased her vehicle. The customer advised CARS that the selling dealer had done numerous repairs to the vehicle; however, the issues with the vehicle were still present. CARS again reviewed the customer Service Contract coverage with her. The customer advised CARS that she was unhappy with the dealer for selling her a vehicle with issues. CARS advised the customer that a mechanical claim would need to opened on behalf of vehicle. On February 26, at 2:p.m., the customer advised CARS that the timing chain on her vehicle needed to be replaced. On February 27, at 8:a.m., a repair facility advised CARS that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing timing chain issues. CARS then reviewed CARS’ claim procedures with the repair facility. On February 27, at 9:a.m., CARS’ management reviewed the February 27, timing chain claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. CARS found that during the February 19, (10:a.m.) recorded telephone call, the customer advised CARS that the issues with her vehicle were present on December 23, 2017, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on January 9, Therefore, pursuant to the Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. On February 27, at 9:a.m., CARS advised the repair facility that CARS could not assist with the February 27, timing chain claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle because the timing chain issues were present on December 23, 2017, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on January 9, 2018. On April 2, at 1:p.m., CARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, CARS was unable to assist with the February 27, timing chain claim made on behalf of her vehicle because the customer advised CARS that the timing chain issues were present on December 23, 2017, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on January 9, 2018. The customer’s telephone call was then transferred to CARS customer service manager. On April 2, at 1:p.m., CARS customer service manager advised the customer that she stated in a recorded telephone call that the timing chain issues were present on December 23, 2017, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on January 9, 2018. The customer advised that the issue with her vehicle at that time had been due to a bad sensor. CARS customer service manager advised the customer that CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. The customer then requested to speak to the customer service manager’s supervisor. On April 2, at 3:p.m., the customer advised CARS office manager that the previous issue with her vehicle was due to a bad sensor and the timing chain issues occurred after her Service Contract went into effect. CARS office manager advised the customer that she would review the timing chain claim and requested that the customer provide her with invoices (attached) showing what had been replaced in the customer’s vehicle. On April 12, 2018, CARS office manager advised the customer that she reviewed the February 27, timing chain claim made on behalf of the customer’s vehicle. CARS office manager advised the customer that CARS was unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. The customer advised that her Service Contract was active on the date of purchaseCARS office manager then advised the customer that pursuant to her Service Contract, the Service Contract was not in effect until it was received by CARS with payment and approved by CARS which was on January 9, 2018. On April 12, at 9:a.m., CARS claim director advised the customer that pursuant her executed Service Contract, the Service Contract did not go into effect until it was received with payment by CARS and approved by CARS which was on January 9, 2018. By the customer’s signature on her Service Contract application, the customer acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to its Terms and Conditions. Directly above the customer’s signature, it states: “I have read, understand, and agree to the Covered Components and Terms and Conditions as stated on this entire Service Contract applicationThis Service Contract application does NOT go into effect until: (1) this completed application is received by CARS, (2) with proper payment, and (3) approved by CARS, which MAY BE DIFFERENT than My date of vehicle purchase.” Additionally, the Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(b) states: “COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Component failures occurring before the date CARS receives and approves this Service Contract application are not covered.” Here, as stated previously, on February 19, 2018, the customer advised CARS that her vehicle began to experience timing chain issues on December 23, 2017, which was prior to Service Contract acceptance on January 9, Based on the information provided by the customer, her vehicle began to experience issues prior to CARS acceptance of her Service Contract on January 9, 2018. CARS was not aware of any mechanical issues with the customer’s vehicle when CARS approved the customer’s Service Contract applicationCARS does not accept service contract applications if CARS is made aware of mechanical failures prior to CARS receiving and approving the service contract application with payment. If CARS had been made aware that the customer’s vehicle was experiencing mechanical issues prior to CARS’ acceptance of her Service Contract with payment on January 9, 2018, CARS would have rejected and sent back the customer’s Service Contract application with payment to the selling dealership. When processing claims, CARS relies on the information that is received from the customer and the repair facility to determine if a repair is covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Service Contract. As stated in the above paragraphs, the customer’s vehicle is not eligible for assistance with any failures that were present prior to CARS’ acceptance of this Service Contract on January 9, 2018. For the reasons stated above, CARS is unable to assist with the repair of the customer’s vehicle. However, the customer’s vehicle has Service Contract coverage through July 9, Should the customer’s vehicle incur future mechanical problems, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under her Service Contract. If the failed component is covered, CARS will authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer’s Service contract. When a claim is presented, CARS fully investigates the circumstances surrounding the claim. CARS honors every contract sold and stands behind CARS’ products 100%. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, Jason ** M***General Counsel JPM/jmmAttachments

August 12, 2015VIA: ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH Revdex.com WEBSITERE: COMPLAINT ID #*** *** VIN (Last *** *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***:I am in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 2015, enclosing the above-referenced consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our
records on July 20, 2015, after CARS received the transfer of ownership and payment for the transfer, a CARS Value Plus Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles) was transferred to the customer by the original purchaser of the Service Contract (See attached "Service Contract”).On August 7, 2015, at 1:p.m., CARS received a telephone call from the repair facility advising that the customer's vehicle was experiencing rear differential and tie rod issuesWe then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On August 7, 2015, at 2:p.m., the repair facility advised CARS that a growling noise was coming from the rear differential and fluid had leaked from the pinion sealThe repair facility further advised that the cause of failure was the pinion sealThe repair facility was to fax an estimate with the cause of failure to CARSHowever, the faxed estimate did not have a cause of failure to the customer's vehicle listed.On August 7, at 4:p.m., in a recorded call the repair facility advised CARS that the cause of failure was the pinion seal.On August 7, at 4:p.m., CARS advised the repair facility that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract coverage, CARS was unable to assist with the repair to the customer's vehicle because the pinion seal is a non-covered component under the customer's Service Contract.By the customer's signature on her Value Plus Service Contract, she acknowledged that she read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions of her Service ContractIt is stated in the service contract: "COVERED COMPONENTS: COVERAGE LIMITED TO ABOVECOMPONENTS.” and under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 1(a) and 1(f): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Components not listed regardless of failure." and"Damage/failure to a covered component caused by a non-covered component." Here, the pinion seal is not listed for coverageThe pinion (non-covered component) caused damage to the rear differential (covered component): therefore, it is the customer's responsibility to repair the pinion seal and any damage caused by the pinion seal.The customer's Service Contract states at Paragraph l(q): "COMPONENTS AND EXPENSES NOT COVERED: Fluid leaks and damage caused by fluid leaks." The pinion seal leak caused the damage to the rear differential.Under the customer's Service Contract, we were not required to cover the full cost of the repairThe customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components; therefore, it was not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the service contract inform the customer what components are specifically covered and their financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, and taxes.For these reasons, CARS stands by its decision and is unable to offer any assistance with the August 7, claim made on behalf of the customer's vehicle pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract.The customer has Service Contract coverage through September 12, CARS will review any claims opened on behalf of the customer's vehicle and if the failures are covered pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of her Service Contract, CARS will pay accordingly. When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.Sincerely,Jason ** ***General Counsel***Attachment

On Wed, Mar 23, at 4:PM, *** wrote:Ok I see the paper so we fix the truck we par dallars now whats can I happend this company tell me to open tje engine we did and we fixed so now what

January 10, 2017*** ***Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220RE: COMPLAINT ID #***MERCEDES GLVIN (Last 8): *** OUR FILE NO.: ***Dear Ms***I am in receipt of your letter dated January 3, 2017, enclosing the above-referenced
consumer complaint and respond as follows: According to our records, the customer purchased the above-referenced vehicle on May 7, On that same date the customer also applied for a CARS Ultimate Value Service Contract (Months/Unlimited Miles] and the same was received with payment and approved by CARS on May 9, (See attached Service Contract).On December 30, at 10:a.m., the repair facility advised CARS that the customer's vehicle was sitting low due to the failure of the rear air bagsThe repair facility advised that there were no other issues with the customer's vehicleCARS then went over our claim procedures with the repair facility.On December 30, at 10:a.m., CARS went over the amount we could assist with the repair of the customer's vehicle as follows: CARS could supply the two (2) rear air bags for $eachProDemand labor guide stated the total repair should take hours to complete, and the customer's Service Contract pays $per hour for laborTherefore, total labor was $The claim was also subject to a $deductibleWe explained to repair facility that the total value of the authorized claim was $CARS further explained that the customer had two (2) choices for assistance with the approved claim: CARS could either supply the parts as stated above or the customer could take a cash allowance totaling $to be used towards the specifically-authorized repairIf the customer chose for CARS to ship our supplied parts, CARS would be able to assist with the labor in the amount of $The repair facility advised CARS that they would get back to CARS with the customer's decision.On December 30, at 11:a.m., the customer advised CARS that the repair facility (a Mercedes dealership) advised him that CARS pricing of the rear air bags was for aftermarket parts and the repair facility would not warranty themThe customer advised that the repair facility told him that aftermarket parts are not up to OE specificationsCARS advised the customer that the parts we quoted do meet or exceed OE specifications and that CARS put a warranty on the parts not the repair facilityThe customer then advised CARS that he would like OE parts on his vehicleCARS advised that if the customer was not comfortable with our supplied parts, he could take our cash allowance towards the repair of his vehicleCARS reviewed that pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS had the right to supply reman parts and the aftermarket parts we were willing to provide were new aftermarket air bagsCARS further advised that the repair facility was a Mercedes dealer and they price OE parts; however, CARS supplies aftermarket air bagsThe customer was then transferred to our cancellation department.On December 30, 2016, the customer advised a representative in CARS' cancellation department that he did not want aftermarket parts on his vehicleCARS again reviewed the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract with himCARS advised the customer that pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of his Service Contract that he would not be eligible for any refund of his Service Contract.By the customer's signature on his Ultimate Plus Service Contract, he acknowledged that he read, understood and agreed to the Terms and Conditions contained thereinThe customer's Service Contract states under Terms and Conditions at Paragraph 3(f): "SERVICE CONTRACT CLAIM PROCEDURE: CARS has the right to select and/or supply used, rebuilt, oraftermarket components when authorizing repairs." When CARS selected the above- mentioned replacement part, we used the cost of the part to be calculated towards the total amount of the claimThese parts could either be shipped to the repair facility or included in the amount of the claim allowance as stated aboveAny supplied parts we provide are to be tested by our suppliers and known to be in good working conditionNowhere in our contract does it state that we must provide the customer with a new or OE part when replacing a failed componentHere, pursuant to the customer's Service Contract, CARS is willing to provide new aftermarket air bags.CARS would like to add clarity regarding the use of aftermarket partsAftermarket parts are replacement parts built or remanufactured to replace original equipment manufacturer ("OEM") parts as they become worn or damagedAccording to Consumer Automotive Research, these parts are manufactured to fit and perform as well as, and some cases better than the original that came in your vehicleAftermarket companies analyze why specific OEM parts tend to fail and then improve on the original design or materialsCar makers are very interested in keeping the price of their cars competitive and may opt for less expensive materials in some partsThis is why some aftermarket parts may outperform the original.CARS service contracts are to be utilized to assist with the repair and do not provide "all inclusive" coverageThe customer's Service Contract is limited in its duration, terms, conditions, and covered components and is not comprehensive (bumper to bumper) coverageVarious provisions of the Service Contract inform the customer what is specifically covered and his financial responsibility for the tear-down, diagnosis charges, filters, taxes, the difference in labor rates and times, difference in part prices, non-covered components, maintenance items and deductible. At this time, the December 30, rear air bag claim that made on behalf of the customer's vehicle was neither approved nor denied by CARSIf the customer would like to use CARS supplied aftermarket air bags or take the cash allowance of $371.98, please have the repair facility contact CARS.The customer's vehicle has Service Contract coverage through May 9, If the customer's vehicle incurs future mechanical issues during the coverage term, CARS will process the claim to determine if the failed component is covered under his Service ContractIf the failed component is covered, CARS will process, authorize and pay the claim in accordance to the Terms and Conditions of the customer's Service Contract.When a claim is presented to our company, we fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the claimWe honor every contract that we sell, and we stand behind our product 100%If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.Jason ** *** General CounselJPM/jmmAttachment

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Of course I accept a $check from Cars Protection Plus which is more than what I expected in settlement from them. I realize that the threat of a class action lawsuit tends to change one's perspective in certain mattersI will say however that I will not be accepting this as hush money and I intend to reach out to many of thedissatisfacted customers that I run into and describe my dealings with this company and the actions that they took in an attempt to quiet my concernsUnfortunately for cars Protection Plus the snowball has already started rolling down the hill with the letters that I fired off to the various consumer agencies and state representatives affiliated with businessl icensure.In accepting this check as final settlement on my case I would say that I am not satisfied with cars Protection Plus and their explanation for presenting me with this settlementThere is no acknowledgement of wrongdoing, there is no acknowledgement of incompetence on the part of their adjuster nor is there any recognition of their poor business practices which in my opinion need to changeI thank the Revdex.com for their efforts in this matter and highly grade you in your support of the General Public battling the tyranny of high-pressure attorneys and large corporations who feel they can push around consumers
Regards,
*** ***