I purchased a 3-year extended vehicle ($1,395.00) for my 2005 Ford F250 based on the recommendation from the dealership (Harvey Kirkland, North Texas Truck Stop, Mansfield, TX) because, according to them, "it is bumper to bumper under the hood and it [the warranty] covers everything except normal wear and tear items."
I read the provided C.A.R.S. Warranty coverage which APPEARED to be VERY comprehensive, providing for coverage of typical engine and power train components. The language is extremely deceptive as I am now finding out. One must have a parts schematic of the actual vehicle in front of them to figure out what is covered and what is not covered. Making matters worse, C.A.R.S. Protection Plus interprets the language uni-directionally in their favor.
I have followed the claim procedure three times with the company and they have refused the claims under the pretense that the parts requiring replacement are not specifically covered. I have no recourse to dispute the coverage. Their decisions are always final... And always in their favor.
As a consumer, I purchased this warranty coverage in good faith, assuming reasonable repairs to broken, worn or non-functioning parts under the hood would be covered and that the warranty company would honor the claims in a fair method. My recent research on the internet is uncovering many customers with similar problems with the company and in fact that the PA Attorney General filed suit against this company in 2004 for specifically the reason I am describing.
Http://www.automotivedigest.com/content/displayArticle. Aspx? A=26313
Had I known that C.A.R.S. Protection Plus was continually operating in this misleading manner, I would have never purchased coverage from them, despite my dealer's recommendation.
Based on the fact that three months into their warranty service "coverage" I am finding out the warranty I purchased is essentially worthless now or in the future, I contacted them to ask for a pro-rated refund because I wanted to terminate my coverage based on the fact that they have paid no claims on my behalf and probably would never do so based on my research.
To date, they have not paid one cent towards a claim.
Considering they are providing a "service" that is clearly unreasonable for me to receive based on misleading contractual language, I see no reason for them not to issue me a refund for the "service" they have not nor will provide in the future.
0 comments