Warranty Solutions Management Corporation

To whom it may concern: It has been verified that Mr [redacted] Vehicle Service Contract cancellation request was processed on December 27, and a 100% refund ($1332.00) was sent to Mr [redacted] lienholderIt has also been verified that the lienholder has received and cashed the check as the check cleared the bank on January 5, Due to the above, Mrwill need to contact his lienholder if he has any further questions concerning the refund since his lienholder has received the refund Thank you

Please see the attached letter for our response to this matterThank you.May 18, 2016Natasha Liebsock Dispute Resolution Specialist Denver/Boulder Revdex.com EFlorida Ave.DenverCO 80210Re: Your Complaint ID#: [redacted] Customer: [redacted] Vehicle Service Contract #: [redacted] Dear MsLiebsock.This is in reply to your letter dated May 16, 2016.First, please note that Ms [redacted] ’s Vehicle Service Contract (VSC) is a contract and not an insurance policy, warranty, or guaranteeThe Administrator of the VSC is Warranty Solutions Management Corporation (WSMC).First it must be noted that contrary to what Ms [redacted] states about receiving the assistance from the Attorney General Office is incorrectThe prior claim she references is a claim that was denied due to her VSC being expired by mileageThe only reason this denial was overturned was that the dealership she was dealing with had decided to pay WSMC to upgrade the terms of the VSCHad they had not done this that claim would have remained denied.It is the role of WSMC to determine whether a breakdown qualifies for coverage under the terms and conditions of the VSCThe VSC provides assistance in covering parts and labor costs in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a listed covered part that is due to a defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of the listed covered part as long as no exclusions or other provisions applyThis determination is based on the cause of the failure reported by the repair facility and, at times, as verified by an independent inspection agency.Independent inspection agencies are often used to report and verify the findings of a repair facilityIt is the repair facility’s responsibility to show their diagnosis and finding to the independent inspectorHowever, independent inspection agencies do not make any claims decisionsWSMC makes the claims decisionWe have reviewed the current claim that Ms [redacted] brings to your attentionAfter careful review of the claim information and the telephone calls that had taken place, we believe the claim to have been adjusted correctly to the terms and conditions of the VSC.The claim in question was originally called in on May 10, Chris with Infiniti of Lynbrook called WSMC and reported that Ms [redacted] brought her vehicle into them complaining that her air conditioning system was not operating and that there was a grinding noise from the engine areaChris reported that upon their diagnosis of the concerns that they had found the vehicle’s air conditioning compressor clutch was not engaging and reported that it was due to a bearing inside the compressorHe then reported that the grinding noise was due to a bearing in a motor for the cooling fan motor/shroud assemblyThis bearing allowed the fan to move and scrape or hit the fan shroudTo correct this the repair facility wanted to replace the complete air conditioning compressor assembly, instead of just replacing the air conditioning compressor clutch, and wanted to replace the complete cooling fan and shroud assembly, instead of just replacing a cooling fan motorDue to this report and the requested parts and labor for the repairs WSMC believe that an independent inspection company should be contacted to dispatch an inspector to the repair facility to verify the repair facility’s findings and to justify replacement of a complete air conditioning compressor assembly and complete cooling fan and shroud assembly.At no time did Chris request to replace the air conditioning system condenserNor did he or any one at their repair facility receive any authorization to replace anythingIt is possible that Ms [redacted] did not fully understand the repair facility or the repair facility misinformed Ms [redacted] what was going onThe cooling fan assembly could have been misconstrued as being a condenser cooling fan as the function of the cooling fan assembly is for drawing air through the vehicle’s cooling system's radiatorHowever, when the air conditioning system is turned on, these fans are also commanded onThis is done to draw air through air conditioning condenser that is mounted on the radiator Therefore air will be drawn through the both the radiator and condenser.An independent inspector arrived at the repair facility on May 11, Contrary to what had been reported by the repair facility, the inspector found no failure to the cooling fan and shroud assemblyThe inspector verified that the air conditioning compressor clutch hub was rusted which would not allow the air conditioning clutch hub lock up to the air conditioning clutch pulleyIn review of the pictures it also appears that something was sprayed on the clutch to possibly to loosen and/or remove the rust.Upon receiving this information a claim adjuster contacted Chris at the repair facility and denied replacement of the cooling fan motor and shroud assembly as there were no verified failure to itThe replacement of the air conditioning compressor was also denied as the only problem verified was rust and corrosion to the air conditioning clutch assembly and rust and corrosion damage is specifically excluded under the terms and conditions of the VSCRust and corrosion is not due to defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of a part but is the result of the environmental conditions in which the vehicle is being operated and is not coverable by the VSC.Since that time, and prior to my offices receipt of this complaint, the repair facility has contacted WSMC to dispute the findings of WSMC’s claims department and the inspection report WSMC receivedThe repair facility has reported they can prove that there is a problem with the air conditioning clutch and that the problem is not due to the rust and corrosion verifiedDue to this report by the repair facility, another inspection by an independent inspection agency has been requested to give the repair facility theopportunity to prove that the failure to the air conditioning clutch assembly is not due to rust and corrosion, but is due to a defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of the partHowever, after the inspection is complete, if the repair facility is unable to show a defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of the part in question, the claim will remain deniedOnly if the repair facility can prove the failure is due to defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of the part will there be any further consideration given for coverage

Please see the attached letter for our responseThank you

Mr [redacted] will be refunded a prorated amount for the unused portion of the GAP Waiver, which is the January 25, date going forwardThe portion from the date of the original date of purchase of the GAP Waiver, and the vehicle, to the January 25, date is the portion that Mr [redacted] was covered and this portion will not be refundedHad a total loss event occurred during these tween the purchase date of the vehicle to the January 25, date, Mr [redacted] would have been able to benefit from the GAP WaiverJust because Mr [redacted] did not have a total loss event during this covered time does not mean he gets a refund for itSimilar to comprehensive insurance, if you cancel your insurance you do not get a refund for the time that you were covered just because you did not have a coverable claim during that timeYou only get a prorata amount from the unused portion going forwardWhile the was an unfortunate event that Mr [redacted] experienced after he refinanced his vehicle it does not make the GAP Waiver completely refundableAgain, Mr [redacted] will need to contact his selling dealer, [redacted] ***, for his prorated refund

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The response states that "it is clear that Ms [redacted] wishes to believe everything her repair facility tells her and not anything we have informed her of" The truth is that my repair facility has been the only voice explaining to me what is going on I received several calls from them each day as this saga unfolded.Warranty Solutions never initiated a call to me to explain anything I called a Brandon McLoughlin at WS, a contact I had since my prior problem with this company, and left message to call me back An underling of his, Eric, called later that day to tell me the inspector saw rust on the outside of the unit and rust is a reason for denying a claimHe stated chapter and paragraph of the contract re denial and 'that all of New York State has this problem' and I requested another inspector be sent, which he denied He did not explain anything about the parts requested or explain any further except that the presence of rust was reason for denial.Upon hearing the next day from the repair shop that the claims department (?) approved the second inspector visit as long as he can inspect the inside of the unit, I was confused The inspector came and saw that rust didn't cause the problem, something else did....not sure which partsHe told the repair shop that he was recommending approval for replacement of the part Then we waited for the paperwork to be reviewed and approved By late Friday afternoon, I learned that it still wasn't approvedThen I called the claims dept and spoke to Zach, a claims adjuster who told me he couldn't discuss this with me until his boss Max, (who was in meetings) reviewed the info which now wouldn't happen until monday morningHe told me the claim wasn't 'in denial status' at the timeZach called on Monday to tell me 'we are moving ahead with the repair'....no other explanation!So I would like to know what steps Warranty Solutions took to explain any of this to me And yes, the only calls initiated to me to explain what was going on came from my repair shop; so I guess they are the ones I believe Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: Personally I feel that the “wrong oil” reason used to not pay this claim is complete and absolute utter BSJust like the website print out used about the
recommended oil by Warranty Solutions to reinforce their “Opinion” I have found several other websites that state that the oil used during the oil changes was a recommended oilPlus all of these oil changes were done at Dealerships and not fly by night service facilitiesBecause at no time did me or my husband instruct the Dealership to use any other oil than what was recommended by the manufacturerThe fact is there is one other problem with Warranty Solutions “solution” not to pay this claimAlmost every single oil change was done at Precision Ford to include the one done three days prior to the isolated bearing failureThe oil changes in question were all performed at Precision Ford that partnered with Warranty Solutions to provide us the Lifetime Powertrain WarrantyThe consumer can only hope that Precision Ford would use the correct oilBut “If” in fact this “Opinion” used as the reason for failure was the wrong oil was used let’s hope it was not done maliciously with the end game for Warranty Solutions being “Not to pay customer claims”Ultimately as consumers we did not do anything to cause this failure nor could we have prevented this failure from happeningWe trusted the Warranty Solutions Warranty Contract and we trusted the Dealership to service our car correctlyWe had a warranty on this car to take care of it in the event there was a failureIf Warranty Solutions truly feels that Precision Ford knowingly or unknowingly, maliciously or not used the wrong oil which caused damage to bearings then Warranty Solutions should pay this claim and pursue the dealership for their lossesDon’t turn your back on the customer and leave them holding the bag.
Sincerely,
*** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/03) */
Please see the attached letter that was mailed directly to Mr*** that explains our position in this matter
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the
business.)
This is NOT true!! The damage is not a result of the radiatorThe radiator is absolutely fineThis is this companies way of not validating the warranty that I purchasedI have already paid and had a new engine installed using my original radiator, so you saying the radiator was the cause is absolutely falseThe engine was faulty and this company simply REFUSED to validate this warranty that I paid forThis company is not truthful and I have plans on taking this company to courtIf a consumer has the ability to read this, beware of this "warranty" company
Thanks for replying with the PDF of your decision, as it will be used to validate your refusal of my warranty
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/11/10) */
While we empathize with Mr***'s situation, we believe the claim was adjusted correctlyAs shown and reported by Mr***'s repair facility, there were no defects in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of any listed covered parts that caused the damage to the vehicle's engineUnless a repair facility can show a defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of a listed covered that would have caused this, no further consideration can be givenHowever, if Mr***'s repair facility is able to show a defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of a listed covered part in the Vehicle Service Contract that would have caused the damage verified, then they may contact our claims department at X-XXX-XXX-XXXX for further review
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 13, 2015/11/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
So the bottom line is this company is a scamNow your argument has changed to "defects in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing" initially, your reason for denial was the radiator overheated and extensive operation while driving with a bad radiatorWhich one are you going to stick to??
No need for Warranty Solutions to reply, basically I have been scammed and regret spending my hard earned money for what I though was wear and tear protection, to now understanding the warranty was only covering manufactures defects
This car is years old, so any reasonable person would understand that if something were to be a manufacturers defect, it would have occurred when the car was newer
The warranty does not state it ONLY covers "defects in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing"
This company is a scam and because I sent pictures of their unsubstantiated denial of my claim, they are now changing their reason for denying my claim

In review of Warranty Solutions claims information, Warranty Solutions has been waiting for a copy of the repair invoice from Mr***, which was received via email yesterday after speaking to Mr***The claims adjuster involved will process the claim and forward the information on to the payables departmentThis process will take to business days before the check for reimbursement is mailed to Mr***. However, Mr*** may contact the claims department at anytime to check the process of his claimThank you

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
I was pleased that the Revdex.com,,contacted the company that I had a problem with,,,the company wrote a letter to the Revdex.com to say that they would pay part of the repair costI was to have the *** repair shop send them the bill,,,I did this
but have received no compensation,,?? Thank you,,*** ***

Revdex.com:
I would like to reject the offer of Arbitration for complaint ID ***
Sincerely,
*** ***

Warranty Solutions Debate:
Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because this company seems to look for any excuse not to pay a claimI am having a confusing and difficult time with Warranty Solutions.I disagree that the first claim for the ac compressor unit was initially denied. In fact, I received a call from Chris at Infinity service to tell me he received a call from Warranty Solutions that the claim was approved.Only a little later - when he called for additional approval regarding the plastic shroud noise - was the whole claim denied until an inspector could come and lookAt that time Chris called to tell me that the first approval had been rescinded awaiting inspector reviewEvidently, the initial approval never was made part of the record at WS When I called WS to ask why the approval was reversed, I was told it was never approvedWhen I said I got a call from infinity service saying it was approved, I was told 'it wasn't part of the record'What does that even mean?When the first inspector saw the car he reported rust and then the WS denied the claim as rust is a reason to deny a claim if it caused failure of the part.When I heard from infinity service that they strongly disagreed with that inspector: they told me that there is a difference between surface rust and corrosive rust that entered the sealed component, causing the parts to fail and that there was no evidence that the part failure was caused by rust'There are a lot of cars working perfectly well with surface rust on the compressor' according to the infinity repair dept.I requested (of another dept at WS), that another inspector be sent as I was told the first one had 'an attitude and was difficult'. My request was deniedHowever, unknown to me the Infiniti service dept also requested another inspector; and that request was grantedon the condition that the sealed unit be opened so the inspector can view the actual parts that failed and determine if rust or corrosion was in any way involved.The second inspector came and inspected the opened compressor on the following day (Wednesday, I think)He told the infinity service reps John and Chris that he saw 'no evidence that rust played any part in the parts failure and that he was recommending approval for repair.' The inspector told Chris to' call WS for approval,' which Chris didChris was off on Thursday but first thing Friday morning Chris called WS to followup on his Wednesday request for approval to order the parts and he was told WS was still reviewing the paperwork. By Friday, after several phone calls back and forth between Chris and WS, a supervisor, Mike, told Chris that the coverage was denied, with no reason given.I got the news and called WS for more info as to the reason and was told by Zach in claims at WS that the claim was 'not in denial status and he had to review the notes with his boss, Max , who was in meetings and couldn't be reached until Monday am.So here I am ...no approval for repair, confusing information from WS and a car with a once sealed ac compressor, now unsealed and in piecesI'm told that once you unsealed the compressor it can't be resealed...it must be re placedWhat is going on at this company? We get different answers to the same question about repair approval .I have to assume that if the second call for the shield had not been placed, the ac compressor would have been approved and replaced and we would not be in this dispute.As for the earlier complaint with the NY State Attorney General office: as described in the response lettter from WS, the additional payment was made to WS to reinstate my full coverage by the dealerHowever, the fact remains that WS accepted payment from the dealer for a contract they didn't sell and never had as a product.(13,6kmi/Mo for $1,800)Since the outcome gave me the coverage needed, the issue was not pursued.Now I am waiting until Monday when Max(WS) can review the notes and Zach(WS) gets back to me with the decision. I just need my car fixed properly.Sincerely,*** *** ***
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

To whom it may concern:  It has been verified that Mr. [redacted] Vehicle Service Contract cancellation request was processed on December 27, 2017 and a 100% refund ($1332.00) was sent to Mr. [redacted] lienholder. It has also been verified that the lienholder has received and cashed the...

check  as the check cleared the bank on January 5, 2018.  Due to the above, Mr. will need to contact his lienholder if he has any further questions concerning the refund since his lienholder has received the refund.  Thank you

We have reviewed the matter you bring to our attention. This matter has been reviewed and while a customer service representative did give incorrect information on what need to be done to transfer a Vehicle Service Contract, no one guaranteed that it would be. They only said to send...

in the request to be reviewed. After review of the request it was determined that the Vehicle Service Contract is not transferable. The particular Vehicle;e Service Contract in question is one of the few that do not have a provisions to transfer it. In fact this particular Vehicle Service Contract specifically states in the terms and provisions of the Vehicle Service Contract that it is "NOT" transferable. Had [redacted] read the Vehicle Service Contract she would have realized this. Due to this the check that was received for the transfer has been returned along with a letter denying the transfer.Also, in our investigation we have uncovered other information that only bolsters our position. If [redacted] wishes to discuss the other information that we have found she may contact me directly at [redacted]. If the Revdex.com requires further information please feel free to contact me. Thank you,[redacted]

Please see the attached letter for our response. Thank you.

Mr. [redacted] will be  refunded a prorated amount for the unused portion of the GAP Waiver, which is the January 25, 2018 date going forward. The portion from the date of the original date of purchase of the GAP Waiver, and the vehicle, to the January 25, 2018 date is the...

portion that Mr. [redacted] was covered and this portion will not be refunded. Had a total loss event occurred during these tween the purchase date of the vehicle to the January 25, 2018 date,  Mr. [redacted] would have been able to benefit from the GAP Waiver. Just because Mr. [redacted] did not have a total loss event during this covered time does not mean he gets a refund for it. Similar to comprehensive insurance, if you cancel your insurance you do not get a refund for the time that you were covered just because you did not have a coverable claim during that time. You only get a prorata amount from the unused portion going forward. While the was an unfortunate event that Mr. [redacted] experienced after he refinanced his vehicle it does not make the GAP Waiver completely refundable. Again, Mr. [redacted] will need to contact his selling dealer, [redacted], for his prorated refund.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The first sign of ever showing overheat was
the day the car broke down. The car overheated on the highway and was driven
just under 2 miles trying to get to the next exit before it broke down. Pulling
over on a busy highway is very dangerous and 2 miles is not an extended distance.
We were quoted by 3 different automotive
shops for a used/reconditioned engine and the lowest was $6000.00. You are
offering to replace a $25.00 part when the engine in the car needs to be
replaced. Thanks that’s a slap in the face. The fact that you are calling my
son a liar “she wants to believe what her son may have told her” your exact
works make me sick to my stomach. How dare you talk about a young man who is
honest and wears a military uniform to protect your families.  
My son went without a vehicle that he was making
payments on for 2 months, jumping through all of the hoops you required. The mechanic
was very frustrated with the time he wasted trying to get in contact with your
company, and the tests he was required to do that he deemed unnecessary. You
made every step of this process absolutely painful for myself, my son and the
mechanic. Your statement of fair dealings and fast claims are both false in
this instance.
You hiding behind your “loop holes” and
lawyers to rob hard working Americans makes you the worst kind of thief. You
are a bully and if we could afford a lawyer, we would hire one to force you to
give people what they pay for. We purchased that vehicle 7 months ago. We paid
you $3000.00 in good faith that we would have peace of mind. As you continue to
rack up your profits filling your pockets by taking advantage of the little
guy.
The multiple negative reviews about your
company that I found are not about other companies with similar names, but your
exact company at your exact address. I will now make it my mission to educate as
many people as I can find on your bad business practices, small print and legal
loop holes. I’ll take every opportunity that I can find to make sure that the
public gets to hear and read all about your company. I have 5 national
bloggers, and [redacted] and the CEO of the [redacted] posting my story as we
speak.  If your company is so upstanding
then why are there 11 of us here in [redacted], all within a 5 mile radius,
that have been taken advantage of by your company. We will spend this weekend
in 11 different areas where your warranty is sold with signs that urge people
to read the fine print and steer clear of your bad business. 4 local news
stations have agreed to meet all 11 of us Saturday morning before we separate and
go to our respective areas with our Don’t Waste your hard earned money on Warranty
Solutions [redacted] signs. My 505 [redacted] followers,
my husband’s 529 [redacted] followers, and my 24 immediate family members for a
combined total of over 3000 individuals are reading and sharing all of the
negative information found about YOUR company this morning. They have been
urged to share and share they have. I don’t even know the total social media
extent of the other 10 members you have treated badly but I’m sure that it’s a significant
number. We may be the little guy that you took advantage of but we won’t go away
quietly without telling our story. If we can’t get you to keep your promises,
then we can only hope to start affecting your profits.
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]

Please see the attached letter for our response to this matter. Thank you.May 18, 2016Natasha Liebsock Dispute Resolution Specialist Denver/Boulder Revdex.com 3801 E. Florida Ave.Denver. CO 80210Re: Your
Complaint ID#: [redacted] Customer: [redacted] Vehicle Service Contract #:...

[redacted]Dear Ms. Liebsock.This is in reply to your letter dated May 16, 2016.First, please note that Ms. [redacted]’s Vehicle Service
Contract (VSC) is a contract and not an insurance policy, warranty, or guarantee. The Administrator of the VSC
is Warranty Solutions Management Corporation (WSMC).First it must be noted that contrary to what Ms. [redacted]
states about receiving the assistance from the Attorney General Office is incorrect. The prior claim she
references is a claim that was denied due to her VSC being expired by mileage. The only reason
this denial was overturned was that the dealership she was dealing with had decided
to pay WSMC to upgrade the terms of the VSC. Had they had not done this that claim
would have remained denied.It is the role of WSMC to determine whether a breakdown
qualifies for coverage under the terms and conditions of the VSC. The VSC provides assistance in covering parts
and labor costs in the event of a mechanical breakdown of a listed covered part that is
due to a defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of the listed
covered part as long as no exclusions or other provisions apply. This determination is based on
the cause of the failure reported by the repair facility and, at times, as verified by an
independent inspection agency.Independent inspection
agencies are often used to report and verify the findings of a repair facility. It is the repair facility’s responsibility to show their diagnosis
and finding to the independent inspector. However, independent inspection agencies do not make any claims decisions. WSMC makes the claims decisionWe have reviewed the current claim that Ms. [redacted] brings
to your attention. After careful review of the claim information and the telephone calls that had taken
place, we believe the claim to have been adjusted correctly to the terms and conditions
of the VSC.The claim in question was originally called in on May 10,
2016. Chris with Infiniti of Lynbrook called WSMC and reported that Ms. [redacted] brought her vehicle into
them complaining that her air conditioning system was not operating and that there
was a grinding noise from the engine area. Chris reported that upon their diagnosis
of the concerns that they had found the vehicle’s air conditioning compressor clutch
was not engaging and reported that it was due to a bearing inside the compressor. He
then reported that the grinding noise was due to a bearing in a motor for the
cooling fan motor/shroud assembly. This bearing allowed the fan to move and scrape or hit
the fan shroud. To correct this the repair facility wanted to replace the complete air
conditioning compressor assembly, instead of just replacing the air conditioning compressor
clutch, and wanted to replace the complete cooling fan and shroud assembly, instead of
just replacing a cooling fan motor. Due to this report and the requested parts and
labor for the repairs WSMC believe that an independent inspection company should be contacted
to dispatch an inspector to the repair facility to verify the repair facility’s
findings and to justify replacement of a complete air conditioning compressor assembly and complete
cooling fan and shroud assembly.At no time did Chris request to replace the air conditioning
system condenser. Nor did he or any one at their repair facility receive any authorization to replace
anything. It is possible that Ms. [redacted] did not fully understand the repair facility or the repair
facility misinformed Ms. [redacted] what was going on. The cooling fan assembly could have
been misconstrued as being a condenser cooling fan as the function of the cooling
fan assembly is for drawing air through the vehicle’s cooling system's radiator. However,
when the air conditioning system is turned on, these fans are also commanded on. This is
done to draw air through air conditioning condenser that is mounted on the radiator.
Therefore air will be drawn through the both the radiator and condenser.An independent inspector arrived at the repair facility on
May 11, 2016. Contrary to what had been reported by the repair facility, the inspector found no failure to the
cooling fan and shroud assembly. The inspector verified that the air conditioning
compressor clutch hub was rusted which would not allow the air conditioning clutch hub lock up to
the air conditioning clutch pulley. In review of the pictures it also appears that
something was sprayed on the clutch to possibly to loosen and/or remove the rust.Upon receiving this information a claim adjuster contacted
Chris at the repair facility and denied replacement of the cooling fan motor and shroud assembly as there were
no verified failure to it. The replacement of the air conditioning compressor was also
denied as the only problem verified was rust and corrosion to the air conditioning
clutch assembly and rust and corrosion damage is specifically excluded under the terms and
conditions of the VSC. Rust and corrosion is not due to defect in material or faulty
workmanship in the manufacturing of a part but is the result of the environmental conditions in
which the vehicle is being operated and is not coverable by the VSC.Since that time, and prior to my offices receipt of this
complaint, the repair facility has contacted WSMC to dispute the findings of WSMC’s claims department and the
inspection report WSMC received. The repair facility has reported they can prove that
there is a problem with the air conditioning clutch and that the problem is not due to the
rust and corrosion verified. Due to this report by the repair facility, another
inspection by an independent inspection agency has been requested to give the repair facility
theopportunity to prove that the failure to the air
conditioning clutch assembly is not due to rust and corrosion, but is due to a defect in material or faulty workmanship in
the manufacturing of the part. However, after the inspection is complete, if the
repair facility is unable to show a defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing
of the part in question, the claim will remain denied. Only if the repair facility can
prove the failure is due to defect in material or faulty workmanship in the manufacturing of the
part will there be any further consideration given for coverage.

Please see the attached letter for our response to this matter. Thank you.