Consumer Law, Warranties auto warranty claim rejected, prompting cancellation..

[daveyjane]

Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania

Denial of a reasonable claim [properly sent from the automaker service manager's request for authorization] constitutes this policy owner's reason for cancellation of a 3rd party auto repair policy. Suspecting a partial return of premiums the policy owner has requested activation of a 'policy errantly written' statement which mandates a 'return of entire premium' in the contract. Policy owner is basing 'errant' upon this policy being worded for internal combustion motor vehicles, while the warranted vehicle is of a fully electric type with no internal combustion engine.
Policy owner is seeking a return of entire premium for an errantly written 3rd party auto repair policy since it has been determined his claim [and any claim ] will not likely ever be paid. Will any claim ever be paid if the very first [and legitimate] claim is denied.?

What approach to the wording of a letter [number two] to the administrator will encourage a return of premiums and a change of heart [or is it mind]?.

Administrator has, to date, been willing to return only a pro-rated portion of premium even though the plea toward errant policy was requested, politely.. Policy owner now wishes to contend that a denial would have occurred on day one, even tho it was only tested during year two of four. Warrantor returns half the premiums requested [the suspected result of initial [polite] letter (number one)]. Administrator stating policy owner only cancelled the policy at midpoint of coverage. in spite of holder's first effort to invoke the errant/erroneous [all payments] clause.
Two thousand dollars remains in the hands of this company with zero claims paid out, and the first and only claim denied on day 700.
Company is in Colorado, client in Pennsylvania. Policy states any arbitration will be in Colorado.

 

[adjusterjack]

No one here can give you any meaningful comments without reading the entire warranty policy. You can upload it. It would also help to know the year, make, model of your car and how many miles was on it when you made the service request and exactly what part of your car needed the warranty work and the reason given for the denial. Don't paraphrase. Give us a word-for-word quote from whoever denied the claim.

You didn't provide any of that information on the other site. Provide it here please.

 

[daveyjane]

2015 tesla model S. with 17inch main touchscreen that leaked liquid through failed glue.[known problem from oem vendor. Service manager ordered the display, estimated one hour labor, called for authorization as directed.. Spoke doubtfully of Carshield's warranties, and when authorization was denied, said that for $1k cash it would be as good as new. Touches to the screen run the car. Carshield had $4k of my cash for many thousand miles and 2 more years for this kind of warranty work. Declining was not the expected behavior. Tesla replaces these under warranty, and my 2015 with 70k miles relied upon this 3rd party warranty which let me down so badly [on the first and only claim] that I want a return of premium to spend on repairs and an EV warranty that actually works. Tesla's Service rep suggested one.
The reason given for carshield's denial was, "not a covered part". In reading all the covered parts [most of which don't exist in my car] it seems more than likely this is not the correct policy, nor the correct company. Few parts will be 'a covered' part. The service manager agrees.

my apologies, i didn't know you wanted such specifics so i kept it general. Happy to provide anything by request. [ .pdf file opens but stubbornly on my machine. Password request is bypassed with an enter key and no password.] 18 page policy enclosed. "17" and "errant" are useful search words. 'Covered parts list' is indicative of the type of policy this is.

 

[adjusterjack]

I took the time to read the policy and I agree that it's crap and you shouldn't have bought it. Unfortunately, that doesn't solve your problem.

You cancelled the policy because you believed that the Tesla was not an eligible vehicle in the first place. I find nothing in the policy or anywhere on the internet to suggest that it wasn't eligible for the policy.

Your assertion that the car was ineligible because most of the parts listed are not present on your vehicle is erroneous. I see 10 categories of parts listed with at least 7, maybe 8 of those categories applying to your car. Omitting cooling system (though I think Tesla has one), fuel delivery, and turbo charger, leaves 7. 7 out of 10 is "most." Which means that "most" of the parts on your car ARE covered.

The cancellation provision of the policy is clear. You get a pro-rated refund, which you got.

Your dispute should have addressed whether or not the part was covered. Unfortunately, the policy is also clear that ONLY the listed parts are covered. If a part is not specifically listed, it's not covered. I don't see "touch screen" listed.

My conclusion, for the two cents that it's worth, is that you won't get any more money out of that company for the cancellation, no matter what you write.

You can still go to arbitration on the part if you want to.