Royal Administration Services

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below [If you are rejecting the business's response please enter your rejection comments here.] The repair shop that diagnosed my vehicle said the axle failure was absolutely NOT the result of rust or corrosion Axles are made to withstand the elements This axle failed due to a defect in the part Royal sells extended insurance policies to vehicle owners who are attempting to insure vehicles that are, by the very nature of the insurance, aged vehicles Every vehicle that has been on the road for a number of years will show signs of "rust" and "corrosion" It is way too convenient for Royal to point to area rust and declare it caused the part to fail Axles do not, in the ordinary course, simply wear out, either due to use or the elements In fact, my repair shop could find only axle available in the U.S If axles failed due to rust and corrosion, replacements would be much more common I purchased coverage for the kind of part failure that occurred, and I deserve to get the benefit of what I paid for Thank you Regards, [redacted]

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the [redacted] Care Titanium coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 5/26/at which time the reported mileage of the covered vehicle was 59,As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsPlease refer to the GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Contract, specifically item c which makes reference to Pre-Owned Vehicles and begins as follows: “No coverage will be provided under this AGREEMENT for pre-owned VEHICLES during the first thirty (30) days following the AGREEMENT purchase date, and for the first one thousand (1,000) miles the VEHICLE is driven after this AGREEMENT is purchased, as calculated from the odometer reading shown on the DECLARATION PAGE.”Upon initiation of the first claim (# [redacted] ) on 7/5/16, the Contract had been available for use for only ten (10) days and had been driven 2,miles in that timeIt was determined that one item, the right from CV boot would be covered as it was clearly a short term failureHowever, the request for coverage of the steering rack was denied as existing prior to meeting the referenced time/mileage frames referenced aboveThis determination was the result of an independent third party inspector’s findings as supported by photographs of a heavy buildup of road grime indicating a long term leak at the steering gear left side shaft sealThe lack of fluid then caused the breakdown of the steering rack The second claim (# [redacted] ) was started on 8/2/16, thirty-eight (38) days after driving the vehicle milesThe repair facility reported multiple repairs neededThese included the right front CV boot, left front axle shaft, two (2) struts, a brake booster and, the master cylinderOnce again an inspection was ordered resulting in approval of the all but two of the requested itemsThe strut failures were determined to have been the result of a long term leak evidenced by the saturation of the strut housingAlthough it was determined the brake booster had failed, there was no failure to the master cylinder demonstrated by the repair facility to the inspectorIt was thought at the time that additional disassembly was needed to verify a failure to this partA third claim (# [redacted] ) was called in on 8/8/at which time the repair facility provided additional information with regard to the master cylinderUpon review, the second claim (# [redacted] ) was amended to now include the master cylinder and the third claim discarded as it was a duplicationThe end result of which is that other than those items found to have failed prior to the Contract being available for use have now been approved This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the [redacted] Care Titanium coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 5/26/at which time the reported mileage of the covered vehicle was 59, As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions Please refer to the GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Contract, specifically item c which makes reference to Pre-Owned Vehicles and begins as follows: “No coverage will be provided under this AGREEMENT for pre-owned VEHICLES during the first thirty (30) days following the AGREEMENT purchase date, and for the first one thousand (1,000) miles the VEHICLE is driven after this AGREEMENT is purchased, as calculated from the odometer reading shown on the DECLARATION PAGE.” Upon initiation of the first claim (# [redacted] ) on 7/5/16, the Contract had been available for use for only ten (10) days and had been driven 2,miles in that time It was determined that one item, the right from CV boot would be covered as it was clearly a short term failure However, the request for coverage of the steering rack was denied as existing prior to meeting the referenced time/mileage frames referenced above This determination was the result of an independent third party inspector’s findings as supported by photographs of a heavy buildup of road grime indicating a long term leak at the steering gear left side shaft seal The lack of fluid then caused the breakdown of the steering rack The second claim (# [redacted] ) was started on 8/2/16, thirty-eight (38) days after driving the vehicle miles The repair facility reported multiple repairs needed These included the right front CV boot, left front axle shaft, two (2) struts, a brake booster and, the master cylinder Once again an inspection was ordered resulting in approval of the all but two of the requested items The strut failures were determined to have been the result of a long term leak evidenced by the saturation of the strut housing Although it was determined the brake booster had failed, there was no failure to the master cylinder demonstrated by the repair facility to the inspector It was thought at the time that additional disassembly was needed to verify a failure to this part A third claim (# [redacted] ) was called in on 8/8/at which time the repair facility provided additional information with regard to the master cylinder Upon review, the second claim (# [redacted] ) was amended to now include the master cylinder and the third claim discarded as it was a duplication The end result of which is that other than those items found to have failed prior to the Contract being available for use have now been approved Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments belowRegards, [redacted]

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above Based on the information provided, I have requested the claim in question be re-opened for further consideration The Complainant has been contacted via email and advised of this action At the conclusion of the review, the Complainant will be contacted directly to discuss our findings Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state lawThis letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above Based on the information provided, I have requested the claim in question be re-opened for further considerationThe Complainant has been contacted via email and advised of this actionAt the conclusion of the review, the Complainant will be contacted directly to discuss our findings Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referencedAs the Complainant has provided no additional comments, please refer to our letter dated June 26, for a detailed response regarding this matterOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Select coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] , Inc (the "Vendor") on 10/4/ As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc("Royal") serves as the administrator of the Contract Royal does not now nor at any time participated in the sale of the Contract and as such cannot comment on any communication between the Complainant and the Vendor The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions The Contract is referred to as “part specific” in that it provides coverage, in the event of a mechanical failure, to ONLY those parts specifically listed under section tilted COVERAGE When receiving a call from a Contract Holder or his/her selected repair facility (RF) the Contract coverage is checked If the part(s) is listed, a claim will be initiated for review by a Claims Adjuster Our records confirm Claim # [redacted] was initiated on 5/29/and approved on 6/3/for a used transmission, as well as, transmission fluid, a filter, front pump seal and, a rear seal The Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) contacted our office on 6/4/at which time it was requested that Royal order the transmission and have it shipped to that facility The transmission purchased carries a warranty of months or 12,miles provided by the part supplier On 5/5/2015, at which time said warranty was still applicable, the Complainant contacted our office to inquire as to diagnostic costs and stated she was experiencing (what she believed to be) an electrical issue She was advised that the warranty on the transmission was still available and to have the problem determined by the RF Later that same day, 5/5/2015, our office received a call from the RF The caller, ***, stated the vehicle was in need of a battery clamp and timing chain tensioner A review of the listed components indicated neither items were listed thus no claim was initiated The Complainant then contacted Royal on 5/7/ She was advised that timing chain tensioner is not listed for coverage and was directed to her RF with regard to any transmission concern The Vendor contacted us on 5/11/2015, via email inquiring on behalf of the Complainant The same directive was given that the Complainant was to take the vehicle to the RF No communication was received from her RF nor did our office receive any further communication from the Complainant regarding the transmission On 5/31/a call was received from the RF asking to start a claim on the “door ajar switch” and the heated and cool seat cushions and filters A review of the Contract coverage was done which did NOT list these items Therefore no claim was initiated Additional calls were received from the Complainant and the RF It was clarified that the part needed is, in fact, the “door ajar (or “jam”) switch” as originally stated The last call resulted in the Complainant speaking directly to a Supervisor to clarify this matter The Complainant confirmed she was having no problem locking or unlocking her door(s) When driving, although the door is closed, the door alarm comes on to advise the door is ajar The part needed is located inside the door which triggers a sensor to advise the driver that the door is not properly closed The fact this is an electrical part is not in dispute, the issue is, is this part listed for coverage Please refer to the Contract, section 3, COVERAGE I have underlined the specific switches that are listed within the ELECTRICAL coverage which states: “Alternator, voltage regulator, starter motor, starter solenoid, ignition switch, front & rear wiper motors and switches, washer pump and switch, headlamp switch, turn signal switch, rear defroster switch, AC/heater blower speed switch, power window motors, regulators and switches, power door lock actuators and switches.” The “door ajar” switch is NOT listed Only the switches associated with the door lock actuator are listed meaning the switches used to lock and unlock the door are included The Complaint confirmed the locking and unlocking of her door(s) is NOT the problem The decision that the part needed is not listed has been confirmed Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue The Complainant has not provided any new information that would support the reversal of the claim denial Please refer once again to the findings of the independent third party and the photographs as explained in our response dated July 5, The air conditioning would have continued working despite the leak until such time as the loss of freon resulted in the lack of proper cooling The RF stated when initiating the claim on 5/27/that when the freon level was checked it was found to be empty This further supports the conclusion that the leak was long term and occurred during or prior to the Validation Period being met To be clear, Royal does not sell or collect funds for the sale of the Contracts As the Contract Administrator we are required by the underwriter to adhere to the terms and conditions set forth in the Contract Unfortunately this may result in the denial of coverage Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below Regards, [redacted]

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Premium coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 7/1/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions On 11/10/2015, at or about 3:30pmET our office received a call from [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF1”) which time a claim was initiated for a replacement of the transmissionIn accordance with standard procedures, an independent third party inspector was dispatched to the RF to verify the transmission failure and determine the cause of that failure The result of the inspection determined an internal failure of the transmission had occurred but, the cause of the failure and extent was undeterminable as the transmission had not been taken apartAs such, and in accordance with the Contract, a tear down of the transmission to the point where the failure is visible or determinable was neededThis information was communicated to the RFby telephone on 11/16/After which, the Adjuster placed a call to the Complainant as his authorization is required before the RF may proceedIt has been determined that when the Adjuster placed the call to the Complainant, it rang busy and he did not try to contact the Complainant again The Complainant spoke with our office on 11/17/and was advised of the need for the transmission to be torn downIn addition, the Complainant indicated he would be relocating the vehicle to another RFThe Adjuster called the Complainant on 11/18/and the phone rang busyHe improperly noted there was no answer and then did not call again until 11/19/This is inconsistent with proper procedure and has been addressed Our office received a call advising the vehicle was being moved to [redacted] (“RF2”)On 11/30/an independent third party inspector was dispatched to verify the cause of failureThe inspector is scheduled to be at RFat 10am on 12/2/Once his report is received and reviewed, presuming no additional information is required, a decision will be rendered We certainly apologize for any delays caused by the adjudication processClearly this would have been resolved sooner had our communication not been delayed with the Complainant AND, RFwould have completed the teardownThe Contract does allow for rental reimbursement in the event the claim is approvedTherefore, if the Complainant has rented a vehicle and the claim is approved, he may submit that receipt accordingly Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the administrator of the above referenced Service ContractWe are responding with regard to the Complaint on behalf of [redacted] (the “Vendor”), the company from whom the Complainant purchased the ContractI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from the Vendor on 10/15/at which time the mileage was reported as 104,As stated in the Contract, Royal serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditionsOn Friday, 7/10/15, at or about 10:15am ET our office received a call from [redacted] ***, the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) who reported a transmission problem with the vehicleClaim # [redacted] (the “Claim”) was initiated at that timeDuring the conversation, the RF was advised that maintenance records would be required, an inspection may be needed and that the Oxygen Sensor is not a listed for coverageIn accordance to standard operating procedure, the vehicle was to be inspected by an independent third party to verify the failure, determine the cause of said failure and report findings and photographs supporting those findings to the Royal Adjuster assigned to adjudicate the claimOn that same day, the Adjuster contacted the RF and was unable to speak with the representativeA message was left advising of the need for the inspection and a request for a return call to confirm the vehicle was ready for the inspectorGiven the Claim was initiated on a Friday, once the RF confirmed the availability of the vehicle for inspection the inspection company was not contacted and confirmed receipt of the requested inspection on Monday, 7/13/On that same day, the RF called to inquire as to the inspection and was advised of the standard 24-hours for the inspector to arriveThe inspection was completed on 7/14/and that report and photographs were filed that eveningAs such, the report was available to the Adjuster on 7/15/for his review as part of the adjudication processDue to an extremely high volume of claim, the decision was delayed resulting in authorization being provided on Saturday, 7/18/at or about 8:20am ETOn Monday, 7/20/15, at or about 12:10pm ET the RF contacted our office with regard to the Claim approvalAfter review, the representative offered and she agreed to have Royal order the used transmission for delivery to Peak ***In addition, the caller ( [redacted] ) also inquired as to rental coverageThe representative read the Rental Benefit directly from the ContractIt should be noted that the decision to rent a vehicle is that of the Contract Holder as this is a reimbursement processAs such, the Complainant could have rented a vehicle at any timeOnce the Claim was approved, the Rental Benefit would apply starting on the date the claim was submitted, which in this instance was 7/10/Had the Complainant rented a vehicle, reimbursement would have been availableIn consideration for the previously referenced delay in approving the Claim, reimbursement will be issued for the maximum allowable amount per claim of $With regard to the approval of the used transmission, please refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES:, item BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTS which states the following: “We will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs to repair or replace any Breakdown of a part listed in the Plan Coverage Section, as determined by the Administrator using standard and common industry practicesCOVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING UPON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINSITRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTIRED OR NEW PARTS.” The approval of the used transmission falls under this clause as it meets the “like kind and quality”, as well as, the “used” referenceThe transmission located meets the manufacturer’s specifications for the Complainant’s [redacted] 525, had less than the 111,miles than that on the Complainant’s vehicle and the supplier provided a month/12,mile warranty on both the part and the labor The RF was concerned about programming the used transmission for the Complainant’s vehicleAdditional labor time of one (1.0) hour was provided for the time needed to complete this processGiven the RF is a [redacted] dealer, it would be expected that their facility would have the capability to complete this processThe total labor time approved was hoursAs previously referenced, one (1.0) hour was allocated for the programming while the remaining eight (8.0) is the stated time needed to remove and replace the transmission in this vehicle as indicated in the nationally published labor manual, [redacted] *** The Contract does indicate if the claim is approved, the reasonable cost of diagnosis will be paid by the Administrator, for up to one hourAs such, the Claim has been amended and the Complainant will be reimbursed for one hour at the labor rate approved for the Claim of $ When the Claim was submitted, the RF advised their posted labor rate was $per hourAs stated in the Contract, the labor rate will be based on the posted labor rateHowever, it also states the “Administrator also reserved the right to adjust the approved labor rate if the repair facility’s labor rate is deemed to be excessive by the Administrator when compared to local average labor rates for similar facilities.” At the time of submission, the local (mile radius of the RF) average labor rate for similar facilities (European Dealerships) was $which was approved for the Claim In addition to the diagnosis, the Complainant references fluid and boltsItems such as bolts and screws are shop supplies and are not listed for coverageFluids, when required in conjunction with a covered repair should have been includedAs such, reimbursement in the amount of $for liters of transmission fluid (ATF) will be issued.The Complainant states his share of the cost of the replacement of the transmission should be 0%Each claim on this Contract carries a $deductibleIn addition, the Complainant would be responsible for any charges not covered under the Service Contract of which the bolts, screws and brake cleaner would fallAs would the additional labor costs of the difference between that which was approved and that charged by the RFAt this time a reimbursement will be issued to the Complainant as follows: hour for diagnosis = $128.96Transmission Fluid = $209.40Subtotal = $338.368.75% Tax on Subtotal = $29.61Rental/Cab Fare Reimbursement = $175.00Total Reimbursement = $542.97A check in this amount will be issued to the Complainant and mailed to the address on fileOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above I have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/ The vehicle, a [redacted] **, was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,miles As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc (“Royal”) serves as the administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, and our response As the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the Contract Given the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage As stated in the email response from [redacted] ***, Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the Complainant Currently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage planShould the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to Royal Upon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the Contract This means a pro-rated refund will be issued to [redacted] ***, (“***”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator received The Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor received.In the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund due Vendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the ComplainantThe responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Contract Royal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Contract, as well as applicable state lawThis letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/The vehicle, a [redacted] **, was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,milesAs stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, and our responseAs the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the ContractGiven the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage As stated in the email response from [redacted] ***, Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the ComplainantCurrently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage plan Should the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to RoyalUpon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the ContractThis means a pro-rated refund will be issued to [redacted] ***, (“***”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator receivedThe Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor receivedIn the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund dueVendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the ComplainantThe responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Contract, as well as applicable state lawThis letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/The vehicle, a [redacted] **, was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,milesAs stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, and our responseAs the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the ContractGiven the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage As stated in the email response from [redacted] ***, Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the ComplainantCurrently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage plan Should the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to RoyalUpon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the ContractThis means a pro-rated refund will be issued to ***sure Group LLC, (“***”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator receivedThe Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor receivedIn the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund dueVendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the ComplainantThe responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Contract, as well as applicable state lawThis letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue Our records indicate the Complainant purchased the Royals Shield Primary coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 6/13/The vehicle, a [redacted] **, was reported to have an odometer reading of 110,milesAs stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions Royal does not dispute the statement made by the Complainant and stands by the response she received to her email dated June 8, and our responseAs the Administrator no one from our office was at any time involved in the sale of the ContractGiven the information Royal received from or on behalf of the Vendor, we are required to adhere to the Contract terms and conditions as these apply to the Primary coverage As stated in the email response from [redacted] ***, Business Service Supervisor, Royal is unable to change the coverage plan and, under the Contract terms is not liable for a refund to the ComplainantCurrently the Contract is active and available, in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a part listed under the Primary coverage plan Should the Complainant choose to cancel the Contract, the Complainant will need to communicate this decision directly to RoyalUpon receipt, the Contract will be cancelled in accordance to the ContractThis means a pro-rated refund will be issued to ***sure Group LLC, (“***”) the lending institution that financed the Contract purchase Please refer to the Contract section titled REFUND which states in part (bold added for emphasis): “The Administrator agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund, based on the amount of the consideration the Administrator receivedThe Vendor agrees to pay its respective percentage of the refund based on the amount of the consideration the Vendor receivedIn the event a refund is due upon cancellation of this Service Contract, the Administrator shall remit to the Vendor the Administrator’s respective percentage of the refund dueVendor shall then remit to You the full refund amount due, which shall include both the Administrator’s and the Vendor’s respective percentage of the refund due If a lending institution or the Vendor has financed the purchase of this Service Contract, the refund check will be made payable to the lending institution or the Vendor.” Please understand that [redacted] has no liability in this matter and will not issue any refund to the ComplainantThe responsibility for any refund to the Complainant is that of the Vendor who, unfortunately is no longer in business Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserved, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Contract, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, reviewed all recorded calls and, examined the files at issueOur records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Roya’s Shield Ultimate plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 2/9/As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditions.The Contract is commonly referred to “exclusionary” in that it provides coverage for all mechanical failures with the exception of those parts or circumstances that are specifically listedIn addition, the section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED addresses additional circumstances in which coverage is excluded On 8/4/at 9:41:22am ET our office received a call from ***, a representative of [redacted] , the repair facility (the “RF”) selected by the Complainant to have his vehicle servicedShe advised of the concerns with the ABS Speed Sensors and a claim was initiated at that timeIn accordance with standard operating procedures, the claim was assigned to an Adjuster who, upon review contacted the RF to secure additional information This contact was initiated at 1:01:49pm ET on 8/4/ [redacted] was unavailable resulting in a voice mail message asking simply that she return the callThat return call was received on 8/6/15, at 3:40:31pm ETUpon discussing the situation at that time, it was determined that an independent third party inspection was requiredThe standard turnaround time for an inspection is – business hours followed by an additional day to receive and review the report and photographsGiven the inspector was requested on Thursday 8/6/he was at the RF on Friday, 8/7/and the report was reviewed the following business day, Monday, 8/10/The inspection report and supported by photographs stated the “Failure of left and right front wheel speed sensors due to rust.” The Adjuster contacted the RF on that same day at 9:43:05am ET at which time he explained that the Contract ***ries a stipulation that excludes a failure caused by rust or corrosionPlease refer to items and under the section titled WHAT S NOT COVERED The Complainant references the service providedIt is not our intent to delay or cause any inconvenience to the Complainant when adjudicating a claimIn this instance when the RF had not returned his call in a prompt manner, the Adjuster should have tried to reach the RF again rather than waitingHad this happened, the inspection may have been completed before the weekendIt would not, however, changed the result that the claim was denied due to the finding of rust being the cause of failureOn 8/12/at 6:16pm an email was received from the Vendor which contained that which the Complainant had submitted regarding this claim and the service providedRecognizing the delay referenced above and, as a courtesy to the Complainant, the claim decision was reversedThe claim was approved on 8/13/and the RF notified accordingly

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below Attached is the invoice from 7/28/on which this company (Royal) based their decision of “pre-existing” onThere is also an attachment of what was paid for and fixedThere were two separate complaints and two totally different noises heardThey ASSUMED from the 7/28/invoice that the noise was related to what my claim was filed for, which it was not! Even after I paid to repair what this company refused to cover, the noise from 7/28/is STILL happening which clearly had nothing to do with what was denied on my claimI would also like to see phone records where this company “claimed” to have contacted me verbally on several occasions (so they stated in the first response to Revdex.com) to tell me why my claim was denied Regards, [redacted] ***

Regards, untrue their statements. I have called in three additional times and was told that I did not have a warrantee contract with them. I have the bills to show that I had the work done anyway although according to my warrantee pamphlet these items were covered. Each time I asked for a supervisor, was again told I did not have a contract. I asked to have the companies phone number so I could call in and they would not give it to me. It is only recently I found the letter that was sent to me from Royal assuring me coverage. The last time I called it was for calipers, again told I had no coverage, I send in the book it is covered under my premier coverage which I have. I asked them to look up the last time I called and they did, it was for my emergency brake, which again I was told was not covered nor did I have coverage. I made these calls from my cell phone where there are records of my call. I could not get permission for repairs because they refused to acknowledge I had coverage. [redacted] I have bills, phone records and witnesses. Plus the letter they they told the BBB they were giving me to have me drop my claim against them..any questions feel free to call ###-###-####

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue. Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield... [redacted] coverage plan (the “Contract”) on 3/16/16. Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. On 4/6/16, our office received a call from a representative of [redacted] ***, the Complainant’s selected repair facility (RF). All standard information was requested at that time, including the inquiry as to any modifications to the vehicle to which the RF stated there were none. As is standard practice, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF. The purpose of the inspection consists of verifying all information provided at the time the claim was started, as well as, confirming the breakdown and determining the cause of said breakdown. Upon receipt of the inspection report, it was learned that the vehicle had oversize tires which is considered to be a modification. Unfortunately, any modification to the vehicle excludes coverage. As such, the claim was denied. Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 16 which states: “16. Any alterations which have been made to Your Vehicle and are not factory- installed; frame or suspension modifications; lift kits; oversized/undersized tires or wheels; trailer hitches; or any other modifications to any of Your Vehicle’s systems.” Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law. This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced above. I have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue. Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Royal Shield [redacted] coverage plan (the “Contract”) on 3/16/16. Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract. The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions. On 4/6/16, our office received a call from a representative of [redacted] ***, the Complainant’s selected repair facility (RF). All standard information was requested at that time, including the inquiry as to any modifications to the vehicle to which the RF stated there were none. As is standard practice, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF. The purpose of the inspection consists of verifying all information provided at the time the claim was started, as well as, confirming the breakdown and determining the cause of said breakdown. Upon receipt of the inspection report, it was learned that the vehicle had oversize tires which is considered to be a modification. Unfortunately, any modification to the vehicle excludes coverage. As such, the claim was denied. Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item 16 which states: “16. Any alterations which have been made to Your Vehicle and are not factory- installed; frame or suspension modifications; lift kits; oversized/undersized tires or wheels; trailer hitches; or any other modifications to any of Your Vehicle’s systems.” Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract. Royal Administration Services, Inc. does not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law.

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below From what I can tell their response is just asking for the same information I provided you when I completed my complaint I want them to cover my $repair cost by including the Torque Converter Solenoid as part of the Torque Converter coverage I also would like my money back since this company looks for ways to reject claims, takes forever to settle claim, and their supervisors take way too long to return phone calls (calendar days) Regards, [redacted]

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue The Complainant references having “called in three additional times and was told that I did not have a warrantee contract with them.” To date, our records show only one (1) call received after the 4/8/letter was sentThat call was received on 5/6/and there is no record of any calls received at Royal since that time Had the Complainant contacted Royal, her contract would have been located in our database using several search criteria including the Contract Number, the Vehicle Identification number, her name and/or addressBased on the Complainant’s statement, that she requested but was not provided “the companies phone number to call in”, it would seem apparent that she was not calling Royal! At this time, it is suggested the Complainant contact our office ( [redacted] ) and ask to speak with the Director of Operations, [redacted] The Complainant may also choose to submit the repair invoices she references to Ms [redacted] via fax ###-###-####Please understand this does not constitute any promise to reimburse the Complainant but only to determine coverage for repairs made and consider making an exception to the pre-authorization requirement Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below I don't understand as I have only drove the vehicle for days and bought the vehicle as is from the dealershipI did not put new tires on this vehicle but yet I was still sold this warranty with the intentions that it was valid and had already been inspected by the company that sold the warranty and this warranty was presented to me as being validUnder the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (P.L93-637) is a United States federal law, (U.S.C§ et seq.) which is designed to protect me the consumer from fraudulent warranty practicesYou stated yourself that the tires had nothing to do with the problem of the engine and that a 6% different in tire size would only effect the speed on the odometer by not even mph differencePlease tell me how you are not violating the previously mentioned federal law by denying my claim leaving me completely stranded [redacted]

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Select coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 4/11/Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the PolicyThe Policy is at all times subject to its terms and conditions It is unfortunate that the adjudication of the recent claim was delayedMany of the issues raised in the Complainant’s “Statement of the Problem” were discussed with him during telephone conversations which occurred after the file date indicated on the ComplaintResponsibility for these delays falls not only on Royal but also on the part supplier and the repair facility Our records indicate the Complainant was previously reimbursed $toward his rental costsCheck #was issued on 1/21/and mailed the following dayThis represents the maximum amount as stated in the Contract At this time, an additional reimbursement of $will be issued thus bringing the total rental reimbursement to that requested of $This check should be issued and mailed within the next few business days Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the PolicyRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Policy, as well as applicable state law

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls and, examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the [redacted] coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Dealer”) on 5/12/at which time the mileage was reported as 124,As stated in the Contract, Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditionsRoyal does not now or has in the past been a participant in the sale of the ContractAs such we cannot comment as to the communication which occurred between the Complainant and the Dealer at the time of said purchaseThe Contract is “part specific” in that only those parts specifically listed under components through will be covered in the event of a mechanical breakdownAny and all exclusions of coverage as indicated under the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED applyOn 6/9/15, our office received a call from [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) who advised the vehicle had been driven in to their facilityThe Complainant reported the engine light had illuminated and that she had been adding coolant to the radiator which was being pushed out through the overflow tankTests conducted by the RF indicated a concern with the head gasket, stating their findings indicated the head may warped or cracked as it is leaking combustion in to the cooling systemThe reported mileage was 124,The assigned Claims Adjuster (the “Adjuster”) contacted the RF and the Complainant on 6/10/During the course of these conversations, the Adjuster explained in accordance with standard operating procedures the vehicle would need to be examined by a third party independent inspectorThe purpose of the inspection was to verify the failure and determine the cause of sameBoth parties were also told of the possibility that the failure of the head could be pre-existing as the Contract had been in effect for only days and miles since it was purchasedIf this was the case, the claim would be deniedIn his conversation with the Complainant, the Adjuster explained and the Complainant confirmed her understanding that a head gasket would not fail in this period of time and milesIn the event that the initial inspection did not provide sufficient information there may be a need for a “tear down”This would be done by the RF with authorization from the ComplainantThe purpose of which would be to determine the cause of the failureThe costs of this process would be the Complainant’s should the claim be deniedA review of the inspector’s initial report confirmed the RF’s concern that the head may be cracked or warpedHowever, without additional tear down a determination as to the actual cause of the failure could not be concludedWith the Complainant’s permission, the RF completed the necessary tear down and a second inspection was conductedThe result of the second inspection and supporting photographs found the cylinder head is warped; there is a coolant leak trail and visible signs of exhaust leakage at the manifold to the cylinder head gasket areaThese findings suggest overheating from low coolant and continued operationThis is consistent with the Complainant having reported the need to add coolantThe RF also reported several loose bolts and fasteners were found during the process of the tear down which may be indicative of a previous repairThese findings coupled with the “age” of the Contract (days and miles driven) indicate the failure of the head gasket was the result of overheating and likely existed prior to the Contract purchaseAs such, the claim was properly deniedPlease refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item states in part: “Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire overheating, freezing ” In addition, item states: “Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract .”Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service ContractRoyal Administration Services, Incdoes not waive, but specifically reserves, any and all rights and defenses it may have under the Service Contract, as well as applicable state law