- Report: #646187
Complaint Review: Automobile Protection Corp - Internet
Reported By:
CJD -
Riverton, Utah, United States of America
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Automobile Protection Corp
6010 Atlantic Boulevard 30071 Internet, United States of America
Phone:
Web:
www.easycare.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Automobile Protection Corp EasyCare Gold Car Care Contract Warranty Rip-off from a consumer report "best buy" company Internet, Internet
When we purchased our new GMC Yukon XL from the dealer, we popped for an extended warranty. The vendor of that contract is Automotive Protection Corp, via EasyCare Gold Total Care contract. We shot the moon and got everything covered and got the cheapest deductible we could swing ($50). Now a few years later, the rear differential is bad (diagnosed at the dealership just past the standard vehicle warranty expiration). They called the (not so) EasyCare number and were told they would have to send an adjuster out to verify the damage. A day and a half later, the adjuster shows up and snaps some shots. The day after that, they (EasyCare) called the repair shop to say they would authorize used parts to repair it (which are not available locally) or accept shipment of those parts sent from an EasyCare vendor which will take about a week to get there.
I called Easycare and after 6 hours of run around, found that they are hiding behind a portiong of the verbage in the contract to keep from paying to just repair the vehicle today with new parts. A portion of the contract states that "replacement MAY be made with parts of like kind and quality". They insist that they have maxed out the claim because of the age and milage of the vehicle. Yet there is nothing in the contract stating that the age or milage of the vehicle is used to pro-rate or adjust the repair cost down from new. Only thing in the contract remotely pertaining to this is that the total cost of repair will not exceed the NADA value of the vehicle and that the contract is good till 75000 miles. NADA is 7-8X the repair cost and it's well under 75000 miles. When I read the contract back to them they keep running to the fact that they may use used parts.
Bottom line/my beef is, they insist use of used parts is all they can authorize because they are available. Availability seems to be a rather arbitrary thing in this case. Available a week from now (after two days of delay already) isn't quite available to me. Especially when it's only a few hundred bucks more for the new parts which are sitting 20 feet from the repair shop today. I'm debating on taking this to arbitration or small claims just to make a point (since they've already put me out for two and half days at this point and another 5 business days on the horizon which will put this whole fiasco at about a week and a half if I say OK screw me).
Any thoughts on the liability aspect of this? Is it reasonable to have to wait a week (legally) for parts if other parts (new parts) are readily available?
I called Easycare and after 6 hours of run around, found that they are hiding behind a portiong of the verbage in the contract to keep from paying to just repair the vehicle today with new parts. A portion of the contract states that "replacement MAY be made with parts of like kind and quality". They insist that they have maxed out the claim because of the age and milage of the vehicle. Yet there is nothing in the contract stating that the age or milage of the vehicle is used to pro-rate or adjust the repair cost down from new. Only thing in the contract remotely pertaining to this is that the total cost of repair will not exceed the NADA value of the vehicle and that the contract is good till 75000 miles. NADA is 7-8X the repair cost and it's well under 75000 miles. When I read the contract back to them they keep running to the fact that they may use used parts.
Bottom line/my beef is, they insist use of used parts is all they can authorize because they are available. Availability seems to be a rather arbitrary thing in this case. Available a week from now (after two days of delay already) isn't quite available to me. Especially when it's only a few hundred bucks more for the new parts which are sitting 20 feet from the repair shop today. I'm debating on taking this to arbitration or small claims just to make a point (since they've already put me out for two and half days at this point and another 5 business days on the horizon which will put this whole fiasco at about a week and a half if I say OK screw me).
Any thoughts on the liability aspect of this? Is it reasonable to have to wait a week (legally) for parts if other parts (new parts) are readily available?
