Royal Administration Services

This letter is in response to the correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referencedI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 8/8/at which time the odometer reading was reported as 149,The Contract carries a Validation Period of thirty (30) days and 1,milesBoth the time and mileage must be met before the Contract is available for use by the Contract Holder 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 conditionsOn or about 5/20/our office received a call from a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”)Royal was advised the vehicle odometer reading was 164,and that it needed to have the transmission replacedA claim was initiated In accordance with standard operating procedures, an independent inspector was dispatched to the RF for the purpose of verifying the failure of the transmission and determining the cause of said failureThe result of the inspection confirmed an internal failure to the transmission To complete the adjudication process it was required that the Complainant provide our office with maintenance records to show the vehicle has been properly maintained in accordance with the Manufacturer’s Recommendations for his vehicleThese records were requested on or about 5/22/ Please refer to the Contract section titled CONTRACT HOLDER’S RESPONSIBILITIES:” item “VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Properly Maintain Your Vehicle and KEEP THE RECEIPTS” specifically subsection “Maintenance Requirements:” items a and b which read as follows: “aYou must have Your Vehicle checked and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, as outlined in the Owner’s Manual for Your Vehicle.” “bIt is required that You retain “Proof” of maintenance for the service and/or repair work performed on Your Vehicle, regardless if the work was performed by You or a repair facility“Proof” means repair orders from a licensed repair facility and/or a self-maintained maintenance log that has corresponding “purchase receipts” for oil and filter, coolant and brake system flush, etcPertinent information must be furnished to identify the Vehicle and the repairs performed, such as the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), date, mileage, parts and labor.” In this case, the manufacturer recommends the transmission be serviced every 50,milesGiven the claim was initiated with the vehicle mileage reported as 164,miles, a transmission service should have been completed at or about 150,miles Initially, the claim was administratively closed as no maintenance records were received as of 5/27/However, on 5/28/Royal received two (2) service records the Complainant had submitted to the VendorOne of the invoices provided was Work Order # [redacted] dated 8/19/at which time the mileage was reported as 150,Under the section titled “Comments” it states “AUTO TRANS CONCERN”No additional information was provided Based on the fact there was an initial transmission concern reported to the RF on 8/19/when the reported mileage was 150,381, the Validation Period had not yet been met at that time thus no coverage was availableIt would also appear that despite a transmission concern, the vehicle was driven 14,miles before the problem was reported to our office Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, items and Item states: “Any Breakdown or condition: which already existed when You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurred before You purchased Your Service Contract; or which occurs during the Validation Period.”Item states in part: “Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, and/or failure to protect Your Vehicle from further damage when a Breakdown has occurred.” In this case, the Complainant was aware of a transmission problem “during the Validation Period” and did not take action at that time to resolve said problemHad he done so, it may have prevented the need to replace the transmissionThe decision to deny the claim based on either of the referenced items is correct 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 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 Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 2/12/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 conditionsThe Contract is “part specific” in that it lists every part that is available for coverageIf the part is not specifically listed then coverage is not availableReference is made to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which clearly states “Any parts not listed.” On 4/8/a representative from RMA Body Shop, the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our office regarding the problems with the vehicleThe Complainant was present at the time of the callThe Claims Intake Representative was quite clear when she spoke to the Complainant that the parts were not listedShe advised the claim was being initiated to have a Claims Adjuster reviewBut this did not mean the claim would be approvedContributing to the decision to initiate the claim despite concerns that the items were not listed was that the RF did not have the complete informationThis included, but was not limited to, the part numbers, prices, and labor time to complete the repairsOnce the additional information was secured on 4/22/16, it became apparent the repairs would not be covered and the claim was subsequently deniedThe Complainant accurately included in his statement all of the parts indicated for coverage under the ELECTRICAL componentThe statement begins “The following components are covered:” A review of the listed components does not include the Antenna Amplifier or the Signal Acquisition ModuleAs such, this falls under the Contract reference aboveThese are not listed and as such are not coveredOur 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

Not only did Royal Admin contact the car dealer and tell them I was bad mouthing them (which is extremely unprofessional and untrue) My Revdex.com complaint was against Royal not the car dealerRoyal Admin also did not refund the car dealer $the refunded the dealer $Royal AdminRegards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does NOT satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] There was never any mention of my questions to [redacted] in their reason for rejecting my claim to have my engine repaired/replaced, which could have been easily explained as simple and hypothetical inquiries***My mechanic had mentioned the SLIGHT leak and suggested that there was no reason to worry, since gaskets on older engines often do leak, with no internal issues and can run “forever like that”So long as there is no significant loss of oil between oil changes, which we continuously checked and there was not, we determined that to tear down the engine unnecessarily, could potentially do MORE harm, than leaving it aloneAlso, when I inquired about the tear down with [redacted] , as well as reviewing the Royal contract, the mechanic soon realized that since in his expert opinion, there was nothing significantly wrong with the engine itself, for me to incur the expense did not make senseI personally, know nothing about cars and trust his suggestions, as I have for more than yearsI followed his advice in this matter and continue to believe that he was correct.Unfortunately, while there was a failure within, there is still no proof that the slight oil leak was the sole cause (since the engine was FULL of oil at the time of the failure)I religiously maintain my vehicles and address what needs to be repaired as soon as they occurTHIS TIME WAS NO DIFFERENT.I have spoken with my mechanic at length and we both feel strongly that Royal is factually wrong with their decisionHOWEVER, considering the time this has taken to get to this point, even if I rejected their response and won in arbitration, the cost of continuing to pay for the contract for another months would not be worth the aggravationI would be better off using the money toward another vehicle.Not to mention the fact that there would be no way that I could trust this company in the future is reason enough for me to close this chapter.I understand that by choosing to SELECT “accept the business response” that my complaint will be closed as resolved, even though I do in fact REJECT their responseRegards, [redacted]

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 that the Complainant purchased the [redacted] coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] on 6/30/ As stated in the Contract, [redacted] , Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the Contract The Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditionsOn 1/29/16, at or about 1:20pm, a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our office As a result of that conversation, a claim was initiated with regard to an engine concern The claims adjuster contacted the RF a short time later to discuss the concern During the course of that conversation, the RF advised there was a rod bearing knock and a rear main seal leak In accordance to standard operating procedure, the adjuster requested maintenance records be provided and, that the RF secure authorization from the Complainant to remove all the rod caps and bearings for inspectionAn independent third party inspector was subsequently dispatched to the RF The inspection revealed several bearings showed wear and scoring In addition, the crank case is darkened These findings coupled with the moderate rear main seal leak indicate a lack of proper level of lubrication to the engine which caused the failureThe Contract clearly excludes coverage in the event a failure is caused by a “lack of proper and necessary amount of coolants or lubricants” As such, the claim was deniedFollowing conversation with the Complainant’s father and review of the maintenance records, it has been decided that a second inspection will be conducted Once that is complete, all information will again be reviewed and a final claim decision will be renderedOur office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract [redacted] , 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 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 [redacted] coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] on 6/30/As stated in the Contract, [redacted] , Inc(“Royal”) serves as the Administrator of the ContractThe Contract is at all times subject to its terms and conditions On 1/29/16, at or about 1:20pm, a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) contacted our officeAs a result of that conversation, a claim was initiated with regard to an engine concernThe claims adjuster contacted the RF a short time later to discuss the concern During the course of that conversation, the RF advised there was a rod bearing knock and a rear main seal leakIn accordance to standard operating procedure, the adjuster requested maintenance records be provided and, that the RF secure authorization from the Complainant to remove all the rod caps and bearings for inspection An independent third party inspector was subsequently dispatched to the RFThe inspection revealed several bearings showed wear and scoringIn addition, the crank case is darkenedThese findings coupled with the moderate rear main seal leak indicate a lack of proper level of lubrication to the engine which caused the failure The Contract clearly excludes coverage in the event a failure is caused by a “lack of proper and necessary amount of coolants or lubricants”As such, the claim was denied Following conversation with the Complainant’s father and review of the maintenance records, it has been decided that a second inspection will be conductedOnce that is complete, all information will again be reviewed and a final claim decision will be rendered Our office has, at all times, acted in good faith and in accordance with the Service Contract [redacted] , 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 aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] ***(the "Vendor") on 4/8/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 conditionsA review of Claim # [redacted] indicates it was initiated on 4/12/for the replacement of the right rear axle shaft assemblyAn inspection was originally ordered only to be cancelled when it was learned that the Complainant had removed the vehicle from the repair facility (RF)After confirming when the vehicle would be at the RF and available, the inspection was rescheduled for 4/25/The findings of the inspector indicate the failure of the axle assembly was the result of rust and corrosion of the axle tone ringAs a failure caused by “rust or corrosion” is excluded from coverage, the claim was properly deniedReference is made to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which states in part: “Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, vandalism, riot, explosion, lightning, earthquake, overheating, freezing, rust or corrosion 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 The businesses response states "the invoice submitted by the Complainant's selected repair facility was reviewed...", why do they have to start a new process "to determine the reasonable cost of this repair"? This is another example of how this business treats its customers Why couldn't they quickly indicate the amount they would cover in their response? My repair facility charged me $to replace the defective solenoid and I expect Royal Administration Services to reimburse me this amount In my complaint I mentioned a number of items in my desired settlement I would like the business to refund my entire premium of $3,less the amounts paid for my claims I don't want to have to do business with them any longer as they a) take an unreasonable amount of time to approve and/or deny claims (days after the first call and days after the second call), b) their supervisors/mgmt take an unreasonable of time to return phone calls, (days) and c) they have no dispute resolution process(I was shut down after speaking with [redacted] and was given no opportunity to appeal their decision or to speak with her manager.) Also, it cost me $3,to repair the items that should have been covered by this warranty claim, and the business has only covered $1,worth of repairs so far If they cover the $in item #1, I would like a refund of ($3,764-$1,232-$927=) $1, I believe the business is misleading its customers based on my experience, the Revdex.com complaints, the negative (out of 37) Revdex.com customer reviews, as well as all the negative reviews on ***.com, comsumeraffairs.com and ripoffreport.com I would like the business to commit to provide any prospective customers a list of items they will not cover as part of their extended warranty, agree to attempt to close claims in less than hours, and document a dispute resolution process.Regards, [redacted]

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 Royal Shield Premium coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 4/5/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 109, 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 This Contract carries a Validation Period of thirty (30) days and 1,miles There is no coverage provided during this time Coverage commences upon the expiration of the Validation Period On 5/17/16, at or about 4:49:53pmET our office received a call from [redacted] , a representative of Open Road VW, the Complainant's selected repair facility ("RF") [redacted] advised the vehicle was in need of an engine replacement At the time of this call, the reported mileage on the vehicle was 110, The Validation Period had expired days and miles prior to this claim Accordingly, our representative secured information regarding the RF findings and a claim was initiated In accordance with standard operating procedure, an independent inspector was dispatched to verify the reported failure and, to determine the cause of said failure(s) The inspector’s findings and evidenced by photographs taken at the time of the inspection included the following: “AS PER TECH VEHICLE WOULD NOT START ON ARRIVALTECH STATED HE THEN TRIED TO TURN OVER MOTOR WITH A BREAKER BAR /SOCKET ON THE CRANK AND IT INITIALLY APPEARED LOCKED, THEN AFTER MULTIPLE TRIES THE MOTOR FREED UP AND TURNED OVER DURING INSPECTION MOTOR STARTED, RUNNING ROUGH WITH NUMEROUS MISFIRES AND CLOUDS OF WHITE SMOKE FROM TAILPIPECOOLANT VERY LOWUPON INSPECTION OF UNDER BODY COOLANT NOTED TO BE DRIPPING ALL OVER THE UNDERCARRIAGE AND AS FAR BACK AS THE MIDDLE OF THE VEHICLE, CONSISTENT WITH A LONG TERM ACTIVE LEAK ON OUTSIDE OF VEHICLE OIL NOTED TO BE MIXED WITH COOLANT ALONG THE RADIATOR SEAMS/OIL PAN AND SURROUNDING AREASCOULD NOT VERIFY SITE OF LEAK FOR OIL OR COOLANT AT THIS TIME WITHOUT CLEANING, FURTHER DISASSEMBLY AND DIAGNOSTIC TESTINGMULTIPLE CODES STORED FOR MISFIRES ON ALL CYLINDERS, CAMSHAFT POSITIONIN ADDITION THE FOLLOWING CODES INDICATE THE VEHICLE COULD HAVE BEEN OVER HEATING: CODE [redacted] STORED = TEMP FLAP MOTOR FAULTY CODE [redacted] = CENTRAL AIR FLAP MOTOR FAULTYTEST PLAN REVEALED HEATER CIRCUIT ELECTRICAL MALFUNCTION.”The inspector concluded there was an internal failure to the engine The cause of the failure could not be determined without further disassembly and diagnostic testing On 5/20/at 12:57:08pmET, the Claims Adjuster contacted the RF and spoke with [redacted] He advised the vehicle had been driven only days and miles since the Contract had reached the validation period They discussed the condition of the vehicle and possible next steps During this conversation, the RF referenced the dense white smoke coming from the vehicle when starting The Claims Adjuster explained the strong possibility the claim would be denied should there not be clear evidence of a sudden failure Any overheating or indication of the failure having occurred over a period of more than miles would be denied A photograph submitted by the Complainant was reviewed by the Claims Adjuster on 5/23/ This did not change the information and supporting photographs provided by the independent inspector The Claims Adjuster indicated again if the Complainant wished to authorize the RF to disassemble the engine, only to the point where the failure was visible or determinable a second inspection would be conducted On 5/26/the RF contacted Royal and advised the Complainant had authorized the teardown Having not been advised the vehicle had been disassembled and ready for the inspection, the claim was administratively closed on 6/1/ The RF called on 6/8/and advised the vehicle was, in fact, torn down and ready for inspection The claim was reopened and an independent third party inspector dispatched The second inspection findings indicate a long term coolant leak under the engine and oil pan area resulting in a lack of proper lubrication and overheat condition There was evidence of heat discoloration on the camshafts and a long term coolant leak coming from the water pump housing gasket These findings are consistent with an overheat condition which clearly excludes coverage Please refer to the section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which includes the following (bold added for emphasis): “Any Breakdown caused by: collision, fire, theft, vandalism, riot, explosion, lightning, earthquake, overheating, freezing, rust or corrosion, windstorm, hail, water, flood and/or failure to protect Your Vehicle from further damage when a Breakdown has occurred.” As of the time of this response, the Claims Manager and Director of Operations have both communicated directly with the Complainant to explain the findings of the independent inspectors and the Contract stipulation with regard to a breakdown found to be caused by an overheat condition We certainly understand his disappointment and frustration 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 aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue As previously stated Royal serves as the Administrator of the ContractThis requires our office to abide by the terms and conditions set forth in the ContractRoyal is not now, nor has been at any time responsible for or required to ensure that the selling vendor meets their obligation The Vendor notified Royal of the Complainant’s decision to cancel the Contract on 6/30/The effective date of the cancellation was entered as 6/26/In accordance with the Contract, a pro-rated refund reflecting 75.03% of the consideration received was paid to the Finance Company, [redacted] ***The Vendor is responsible for refunding the Complainant In an effort to assist the Complainant, Royal has contacted the Vendor multiple times to secure confirmation the refund has been issuedTo date no response has been receivedIt is recommended the Complainant contact the Vendor directly with regard to this matter 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 correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded telephone calls and, examined the files at issue Our records indicate that the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 2/28/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 conditionsOn 9/21/at 3:35:17pm ET our office received a call from [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (the “RF”) at which time a claim was initiated for all four (4) door lock actuatorsAs it is unusual for all of the door actuators to fail at one time, an independent inspection was ordered for the purpose of verifying the failures and determining the cause of said failures Inspection of the vehicle revealed that the rear door lock actuators were not responding to the switch commands and the front actuators were moving only slightlyThe RF technician demonstrated power and ground by attaching a tell-tale light to each harness and monitoring the result when toggling the lock switchEach location was verified for power and ground consistent with all four lock actuators to be inoperableAs a result of these findings all four (4) door lock actuators were approved for replacement The Contract allows for replacement parts, depending upon availability and at the Administrator’s discretion, to be like kind and quality (LKQ), used, rebuilt, remanufactured or newThe claim was approved for the front door lock actuators as new [redacted] parts priced at the manufacturer’s suggested retail price and the rear door lock actuators as new aftermarket parts available through Advance Auto On 9/29/the RF contacted our office regarding the rear door lock actuators approvedThe Claims Adjuster (the “CA”) was not immediately available but returned the call at 9:38:19amETDuring that conversation, the RF advised the aftermarket parts were not compatible with the vehicle as it needed the “whole assembly”The RF read from a document regarding the front door lock actuatorThe Claims Adjuster (the “CA”) advised the front were priced per [redacted] part number The RF stated he tried the aftermarket part and would not work as he needed the whole lock assemblyAs the Contract lists only the door lock actuator, the CA asked that RF to provide documentation to show that the rear door lock actuators are not separate from the entire lockThe CA was transferred to another party (***) who again referenced the front door lock actuatorsThe CA advised the approval for the front were priced per the RF [redacted] part number provided and asked for information regarding the rear door actuators [redacted] stated the aftermarket parts “don’t match” he expected these to match the [redacted] assembly and don’t fitThe CA requested documentation to show the problemA parts layout showing only available as one assembly and the aftermarket won’t fit [redacted] declined to provide this information and stated “we’re not going to move forward We’re done with it we’re going to tell the customer to come pick it up.” Based on our research, the aftermarket door lock actuators will fit the vehicle and are readily availableHad the RF submitted documentation to refute that information, Royal would have amended the claim accordingly At this time, our office was advised by the Vendor that the Complainant has decided to take the vehicle to another repair facility for these repairsUpon notification of the “new” repair facility (the “NRF”), the claim will be transferred accordinglyIn the event the NRF provides said documentation, the approval will be reviewed as needed 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 correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Integrity Automotive Protection OEM coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 2/28/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 conditionsAfter review of all available information, it appears there may have been a misunderstanding when the independent third party inspector contacted the Complainant’s selected repair facility, [redacted] , (the “RF”) on 5/27/in preparation to examine the vehicleThe inspector reported that the RF advised that the Complainant had approved the repairs to the vehicle and therefore an inspection was not neededThis information was communicated to our office and was interpreted that the vehicle had been repairedThis resulted in the claim being denied as the repairs had not been authorized by our officeUpon review of the Complainant’s call to Royal on 6/3/and the text of the complaint Statement of the Problem, it appears the vehicle had NOT yet been repaired on 5/27/and that the repair was not completed for several days following the conversation between the inspector and the RFOur office has reached out to the Complainant to secure a copy of the repair invoiceUpon review, the claim decision will be reviewedThe outcome of that review will be dependent upon all information available, including that provided by the RF prior to the dispatch of the independent inspectorShould the decision be made to reverse the denial, the approval will be subject to the standard adjudication processOur 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 lawThis letter is a follow up to our response dated 6/13/Having received the invoice for repair, Royal issued a reimbursement check to the Complainant in the amount of $2,Our office received an email from the Complainant’s son stating the following:“Thank you ,For your attention in this matter involving my father [redacted] .You've made him happy with your decision to his case, and in turn, gained a satisfied customerRespectfully, [redacted] ”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 referenced above I have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issue As indicated by the photograph of the vehicle placard provided by the independent inspector, the OEM Tire size for the Complainant’s vehicle is 255/65R The tires on the vehicle are 275/65R A tire comparative chart indicates the variance is 6.73% oversize In addition the speed variance resulting from the oversized tires is 6.31% slower than the OEM tire size Please see the photograph and comparative chart providedTo be clear, the decision to deny the claim is not that the oversized tires are related to the repair needed but rather to the fact that the Contract clearly stipulates an exclusion of coverage when there has been an alteration to the vehicle which specifically includes “oversized/undersized tires or wheels” Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which states: “ 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, 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 aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueAs indicated by the photograph of the vehicle placard provided by the independent inspector, the OEM Tire size for the Complainant’s vehicle is 255/65RThe tires on the vehicle are 275/65RA tire comparative chart indicates the variance is 6.73% oversizeIn addition the speed variance resulting from the oversized tires is 6.31% slower than the OEM tire sizePlease see the photograph and comparative chart provided.To be clear, the decision to deny the claim is not that the oversized tires are related to the repair needed but rather to the fact that the Contract clearly stipulates an exclusion of coverage when there has been an alteration to the vehicle which specifically includes “oversized/undersized tires or wheels”Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which states: “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 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 lawThis 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 issueAs indicated by the photograph of the vehicle placard provided by the independent inspector, the OEM Tire size for the Complainant’s vehicle is 255/65RThe tires on the vehicle are 275/65RA tire comparative chart indicates the variance is 6.73% oversizeIn addition the speed variance resulting from the oversized tires is 6.31% slower than the OEM tire sizePlease see the photograph and comparative chart provided.To be clear, the decision to deny the claim is not that the oversized tires are related to the repair needed but rather to the fact that the Contract clearly stipulates an exclusion of coverage when there has been an alteration to the vehicle which specifically includes “oversized/undersized tires or wheels”Please refer to the Contract section titled WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item which states: “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 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 aboveI 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 Premium coverage plan (the “Contract”) from [redacted] (the “Vendor”) on 12/14/at which time the odometer reading was reported as 109,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 The Contract is subject to a Validation Period of thirty (30) days AND 1,milesOnce the Validation Period has expired, the Contract coverage will commenceIn this instance, the coverage commenced after 1/13/AND the vehicle odometer reached 110, On 2/1/at 5:35:38pmET our office received a call from a representative of [redacted] , the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”)The RF reported the vehicle mileage as 111,indicating the Validation Period had been and coverage had been in effect for miles and days The RF advised the vehicle had been towed in and the Complainant reported it had “died while driving”The RF had not completed diagnosis so had not yet determined what specifically caused the engine to stopA claim was promptly initiated The claims adjuster contacted the RF the following dayThe RF reported the timing chain broke and there were bent valvesIn accordance to standard operating practice, the RF was asked to secure the Complainant’s authorization to complete a tear down of the engine, to the point where the failure would be visible or determinableOnce completed an independent third party inspector was dispatched to verify the failure and determine the cause Although the repair needed may be listed in the Contract coverage, the cause of the failure must be determinedThe Contract coverage is specific to a failure due to defects in materials and/or workmanship of a part to function as designed by the manufacturerSimply put, the cause of the failure is a determining factor when adjudicating a claim The inspector’s findings indicated the cause of the failure was the timing chain which had stretched to the extent it was “whipping around”For a timing chain to stretch to that point occurs over thousands of miles of drivingGiven coverage had commenced under the Contract for only miles the claim was denied 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 referenced aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issueAs previously stated in the response submitted 5/16/15, the Contract is at all times subject to its written terms and conditionsTo be clear, the Contract covers mechanical failureIt does not cover preventative maintenance or a part which has not been demonstrated as having failedWith regard to the starter, the RF advised the Inspector that he thought “there was a dead spot in the starter due to it starting slow”Multiple attempts to start the vehicle (“at least times”) were successful thus no failure was demonstratedIt is important to note that the RF stated the vehicle needed new spark plugsSpark plugs are directly related to the vehicle starting which may have contributed to the Complainant’s reference to “low cranking power”The Complainant states there was “movement in the left ball joint” this alone does not constitute a failureThe inspector stated there was no “play” which would indicate any “movement” which may be present is and within the manufacturer’s specificationsThe review of the information confirms there were no demonstrated failures to either the starter or left lower ball jointTherefore the decision to deny coverage for these items standsOur 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 The terms and conditions stated in the VSC ("the contract") does not mention anything about the using the "Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price" (MSRP) The OEM replacement parts were obtained through the ***/ [redacted] parts distribution and the repair took place at a [redacted] dealer/repair facility The [redacted] Service Advisor stated to me that at no time was the Claims Representative from "Royal" willing to approve the part replace at the cost quoted by the [redacted] Service Advisor It appears that Royal Administration Services, Inc(“Royal”) either used zone pricing in their repair estimate, did not take into consideration the area in which the vehicle was repaired and/or engaged in repair practices that looks for the lowest possible price, thus placing the customer at a significant disadvantage come repair time No where in the VSC ("the contract") does it state that if the repair part exceeds the amount covered by the plan, the cus***er would be responsible for the differenceRegards, [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, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Following conversations held with the Complainant’s selected repair facility (“RF”) on 12/2/15, the claim was amended to include an additional two (2) hours of laborIn addition, per the request of the RF, the transmission was ordered and was to be shipped to the RF The Complainant references “only paying the $deductible”The Claims Adjuster spoke to the Complainant’s husband (***) at which time he provided the amount approved less the $deductibleMr [redacted] stated “like the term says $out of my pocket ” The adjuster confirmed that was based on the used transmission which we pricedPlease refer to the Contract section titled ADMINISTRATOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES item which states: “BREAKDOWN OF COVERED PARTSWe will pay or reimburse You for the reasonable costs to repair or replace any Breakdown of a part listedin the Plan Coverage Section, as determined by the Administrator using standard and common industrypracticesCOVERED PARTS MAY BE REPLACED, DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY AND AT ADMINISTRATOR’S DISCRETION, WITH LIKE KIND AND QUALITY (LKQ), USED, REBUILT, REMANUFACTURED OR NEW PARTS.” The “reasonable cost” in this instance was adjusted to increase the labor time as requested by the RFAs such, we would anticipate the Complainant will have little if any additional costs above the $deductibleHowever, it should be noted, should the RF assess any additional charges these would be the responsibility of the ComplainantAs stated in the Contract section titled IF YOUR VEHICLE INCURS A BREAKDOWN, subsection 3: “When you pick up Your Vehicle, You must:AReview the work performed with the repair facility representative.BPay the Deductible amount shown in the Registration Page.CPay for any charges not covered by this Service Contract.DPay for the cost of covered components or repairs above the amount approved by AdministratorOur 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 aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur records indicate the Complainant purchased the Sentinel coverage plan (the "Contract") from [redacted] (the "Vendor") on 2/29/at which time the vehicle mileage was reported as 116,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 conditionsThe Contract carries a “Validation Period” of thirty (30) days and 1,miles from the date of purchase and mileage reported at that timeThe Contract stipulates there is no coverage during that periodIn addition, in the event a breakdown is determined to have occurred during the Validation Period or prior to the purchase of the Contract, coverage will be excludedOur records indicate two (2) claims have been adjudicated on behalf of the ComplainantThe first, Claim # [redacted] (Claim 1) was initiated on 4/28/at which time the mileage was reported as 117,As both aspects of the Validation Period were met, Claim was reviewed and approved that same day for the replacement of both the front door and sliding door lock actuatorsOn Friday, 5/6/at 5:12pmET***, a representative of [redacted] ***, the Complainant’s chosen repair facility (RF) contacted our officeIt is presumed the vehicle had not left the RF after the approval of Claim as the reported mileage was the same, 117,514,when the RF initiated the second claim, # [redacted] (Claim 2) at that timeTo be clear, the vehicle had been driven only miles AFTER the Validation Period was metThis means the failure to the transmission would have had to occur within that specific mileage to be eligible for coverageThis would mean a “sudden failure”In accordance with standard adjudication process, the assigned Claims Adjuster contacted the RF at 5:39pmET to secure further information [redacted] stated at that time Royal should send the inspector and she will drop the pan when he arrivesAfter clarifying the situation regarding the low mileage and “sudden failure” [redacted] stated her RF would be responsible for the tear-down to expedite the processShe clearly stated if the claim is denied the RF will cover the costs of the tear-downThe inspector called the RF in an attempt to view the vehicleThe inspector advised at 6:28amPT on 5/10/that he had not received a return call from the RFAt 4:11pm PT, the inspector noted he had left three (3) messages for the RF without receiving a responseThis resulted in a delay of the inspection which was finally completed on 5/11/at 4:30pmPTThe inspector secured the RF Service Technician’s notes, as well as conducted his own inspectionBoth parties found the valve body shows signs of overheat and burnt fluid which is consistent with an internal failure of the valve bodyThis caused subsequent damage to the 2-clutchesFirst, if the cause of failure is due to an overheat condition the Contract excludes coverageIn addition, the conditions of the fluid and the valve body are not consistent with having driven milesClearly this situation occurred prior to the completion of the Validation Period and most likely before the Contract was purchasedTherefore Claim was deniedOur 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 satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolvedI would recommend to Royal Administration that they be more selective in whom they do business withIts not right that The [redacted] seems to have no intention of paying me my refund that I'm entitled to under the contractThey don't even answer back to the Revdex.com or attorney general! Do you really want to do business with The ***?

This letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have reviewed the text of the complaint and examined the files at issuePlease refer to the Contract section titled ADDIITIONAL BENEFITS (Included at no cost): item 2, Rental Benefit, which stipulates the following: “Rental car agreement charges will only be reimbursed to You for charges incurred from a licensed rental agency.” The Complainant secured her substitute transportation from ***, an on line service where privately owned vehicles are offered for rentalThis does not qualify as a licensed rental agencyAs such, the Complainant’s request for reimbursement was deniedOur 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 referenced above I have again reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issueOur previous response addressed the Complainant’s concern that a representative hung up and did not receive a return call The information provided was secured by listening to the recorded call and checking all records pertaining to that call With regard to her request to cancel the Contract, this was completed on 9/25/with an effective date of 9/16/ A refund representing 33.15% of the purchase price less the $cancellation fee was processed Our check was mailed to [redacted] (the”Dealer”), the automobile dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the Contract, on 10/1/As explained, the Dealer is responsible to issue the refund to the Complainant Based on the information received regarding the purchase price of the Contract, the amount of her refund from the Dealer should be $ The Complainant should contact the Dealer directly to secure her refundOur 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 aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our previous response addressed the Complainant’s concern that a representative hung up and did not receive a return callThe information provided was secured by listening to the recorded call and checking all records pertaining to that call With regard to her request to cancel the Contract, this was completed on 9/25/with an effective date of 9/16/A refund representing 33.15% of the purchase price less the $cancellation fee was processedOur check was mailed to [redacted] (the”Dealer”), the automobile dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the Contract, on 10/1/ As explained, the Dealer is responsible to issue the refund to the ComplainantBased on the information received regarding the purchase price of the Contract, the amount of her refund from the Dealer should be $The Complainant should contact the Dealer directly to secure her refund 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 lawThis letter is in response to the additional correspondence received concerning the case and complainant referenced aboveI have again reviewed the text of the complaint, recorded calls, and examined the files at issue Our previous response addressed the Complainant’s concern that a representative hung up and did not receive a return callThe information provided was secured by listening to the recorded call and checking all records pertaining to that call With regard to her request to cancel the Contract, this was completed on 9/25/with an effective date of 9/16/A refund representing 33.15% of the purchase price less the $cancellation fee was processedOur check was mailed to [redacted] (the”Dealer”), the automobile dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the Contract, on 10/1/ As explained, the Dealer is responsible to issue the refund to the ComplainantBased on the information received regarding the purchase price of the Contract, the amount of her refund from the Dealer should be $The Complainant should contact the Dealer directly to secure her refund 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