In 2005 I purchased a Wynn's Extended Warranty for 1998 van. Recently the steering failed. The dealership's estimate for the repair included replacement for the failed part. Other connections, although not damaged, had to be replaced because the manufacturer had made a design change to the assembly. Without the new connections repair was impossible. Wynn paid for the failed part, but refused to pay for the new connections, contending they were not liable because the connections weren't damaged. The exclusion clause in the contract they cite says:
4. Repair of any parts in connection with a covered repair when those parts are not necessary
for the completion of the covered repair or were not damaged by the failure of a Covered
Part. Such repair or replacement is an improvement to Your Vehicle and is not covered by
this Contract.
I disagree with them but had to get the van out of the shop. It seems the intent of the contract is clear and they are using a technicality to avoid responsibility. Do I have a basis for a claim against them? If so, on what basis since, according to the fine print, they have an out although it violates the common sense intent of the warranty.
Thanks,
Gsmathe
4. Repair of any parts in connection with a covered repair when those parts are not necessary
for the completion of the covered repair or were not damaged by the failure of a Covered
Part. Such repair or replacement is an improvement to Your Vehicle and is not covered by
this Contract.
I disagree with them but had to get the van out of the shop. It seems the intent of the contract is clear and they are using a technicality to avoid responsibility. Do I have a basis for a claim against them? If so, on what basis since, according to the fine print, they have an out although it violates the common sense intent of the warranty.
Thanks,
Gsmathe
