Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/10/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I was my truck and the motor just shut off. I pulled over the side of the road. The coil pack in the engine melted and cause the engine not to run. As of today the truck is still at the ford dealership-(**********(214 F150). I reach out to the warranty company for help. I called the warranty company several times and each time the person on the end hung up the phone on me. The dealership informed me it would be between $9000-12000 to repair my truck. I want my warranty that I have paid for to take care of this expense so that I can get my truck back.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/21/2025

  Good afternoon,
  
  This is in response to the consumer’s complaint regarding the denial of a claim under the Vehicle Service Contract he purchased from Wood Ford of Carthage on or about June 23, 2023 (“Service Contract”).  Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) is the administrator of the Service Contract and is responsible for adjudicating any claims in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Service Contract. 
  
  Upon review of the Consumer’s claim file, MBPI only identified one telephone call by the consumer and that call was not terminated prematurely.  Additionally, as of 4/11/2025, MBPI has not heard back from either the repair facility or the consumer regarding this claim.  Accordingly, it appears that the consumer may be contacting either the repair facility or a different entity regarding this claim as our records do not show any calls from the consumer around the time of this complaint. 
  
  Regarding the original denied claim, on or about December 19, 2024, a repair facility servicing the vehicle contracted MBPI due to the vehicle’s engine cranking but not starting.  Since the repair facility was requesting a complete engine replacement without providing sufficient diagnostic information, MBPI requested an inspection of the vehicle. 
  
  Upon inspection, the repair facility provided the inspector with compression tests performed on cylinders 1, 2, and 8 which all showed zero compression.  The repair facility also informed the inspector that the remaining 5 cylinders also showed zero compression.  Based upon this information, MBPI requested the repair facility obtain the consumer’s authorization to remove the timing cover and inspect the timing components to check for a failed part.   However, since these symptoms indicated a timing related failure, MBPI advised that a stretched timing chain was not covered under the Service Contract. 
  
  Under the terms and conditions of the Service Contract, coverage is provided to repair or replace, at Cost for parts and labor, any of the parts listed in the contract as authorized by the Administrator, if required due to a Mechanical Breakdown.  The Service Contract defines a Mechanical Breakdown as “a breakage or total failure of a covered part due to a mechanical or electrical defect which renders the covered part incapable of performing the function for which it was designated.  However, that definition expressly excludes “repair or replacement to increase performance or correct gradual reduction in operating performance due to wear and tear.”  Furthermore, the Service Contract does not provide coverage for the cost to correct poor performance, low compression, or oil compression (e.g., pistons, piston rings, cylinder tapers, valves, valve guides, valve seals, or valve seats. Lastly, the Service Contract expressly excludes the expense of diagnostic inspection, disassembly, and reassembly if the inspection determines that the failure was not a Mechanical Breakdown under the Terms and Conditions of this Contract. 
  
  With this in mind, the repair facility obtained the consumer’s authorization and removed the timing cover.  Upon inspecting the vehicle, the engine was in-time and no timing related failures were detected.  Accordingly, MBPI requested a leak-down test be performed to isolate where the engine was losing compression. 
  
  On or about January 16, 2025, the repair facility reported to MBPI that the leak-down test showed leakage in the crankcase across all cylinders resulting in zero compression.  These results are a clear indication that the failure is in the pistons or piston rings.  As I described above, the Service Contract does not provide coverage for either of these for low compression.  Accordingly, the consumer’s claim was denied. 
  
  In summary, the consumer’s original claim was denied after diagnostic testing confirmed the cause of failure was not covered under the Service Contract.  MBPI only has record of one telephone call with the consumer and that telephone call was not ended prematurely.  As MBPI does not have record of the calls the consumer mentioned in the complaint, it may be that the consumer is contacting a different party, such as the repair facility, and this complaint has been filed in error.  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/21/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  12-19-2024 car had to be towed to Lewis dealership would not start. MBP spoke with ****** and approved for the main fuel pump to be replaced because of having low psi which meant it was failing, so the dealership did. Which led to the secondary fuel pump to be replaced because it was over reading which MBP approved also. Now they are saying that since the first approved fuel pump didn't fix the problem, they will not pay for it, even though it was bad.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/25/2025

  This is a dispute regarding the resolution of a claim.  The portion of the claim associated with the replacement of the primary fuel pump was denied due to the repair facility being unable to demonstrate any failure of the primary fuel pump upon inspection.  The consumer’s claim would more appropriately be addressed with the repair facility as their failure to correctly diagnose the cause of the mechanical breakdown has resulted in these costs being incurred. 
  
  On or about November 3, 2022, the consumer purchased a 2017 Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat (“Vehicle”) from Olathe Ford.  In connection with the purchase of the Vehicle, the consumer also purchased a Premier Vehicle Service Contract (“Contract”) from Olathe Ford.  Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) is the Administrator of the Contract and is responsible for adjudicating claims in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract. 
  
  On or about December 27, 2024, Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) received a call from the repair facility servicing the vehicle.  The repair facility reported that the consumer had an issue with the vehicle not starting and the repair facility found the primary fuel pump had failed.  
  
  On or about January 2, 2025, the repair facility contacted MBPI and reported that the issue was still occurring and was now requesting the powertrain control module be replaced.  Under the terms and conditions of the Contract, the Contract does not provide coverage for the repair or replacement of any part while covered by any manufacturer’s warranty.  As the powertrain control module is covered under the manufacturer’s emissions warranty, this request was denied and MBPI directed the repair facility to open a claim with the manufacturer under the manufacturer’s emissions warranty. 
  
  On or about January 21, 2025, the repair facility contacted MBPI and reported that the powertrain control module was replaced but the issue was still occurring.  The repair facility had opened a case with the manufacturer, Stellantis, and were informed by Stellantis to replace the auxiliary fuel pump.  Since this was the third diagnosis for the same issue by this repair facility, MBPI elected to perform an in-person inspection of the Vehicle to identify the true cause of failure.  Additionally, MBPI authorized an additional four (4) days of rental coverage for the consumer. 
  
  During the inspection, the inspector verified the failure of the auxiliary fuel pump.  Additionally, since the initial replacement of the main fuel pump did not correct the issue and the repair facility was unable to demonstrate any failure of the original main fuel pump while the inspector was onsite, the inspector informed the repair facility that their initial diagnosis was incorrect.  While MBPI has authorized and paid the portion of the claim associated with the auxiliary fuel pump replacement, under the terms and conditions of the Contract, the Contract provides coverage for the parts and labor to repair or replace any parts listed in the contract, only if required due to a Mechanical Breakdown.  As the repair facility was unable to demonstrate any failure of the primary fuel pump that portion of the claim was denied since it was not required due to a Mechanical Breakdown.    
  
  As the cost of replacing the primary fuel pump is the result of the misdiagnosis by the repair facility, the consumer’s complaint would be more correctly addressed to the repair facility.  

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/03/2025

  Good afternoon,

  This is in response to the response provided by the Consumer on or about March 31, 2025. 

  The Consumer is correct that the fuel pump had been removed from the vehicle prior to the inspection.  However, it is still possible for the fuel pump to be tested by measuring the electrical resistance.  Had the fuel pump in fact failed, this would result in either high resistance or infinite resistance (indicating an open).  As we described in our initial response, during the inspection of the vehicle, the repair facility was unable to demonstrate that the main fuel pump had in fact failed. 

  Under the terms and conditions of the contract, the contract only provides coverage for the parts and labor necessary to repair or replace any parts listed in the contract, only if required due to a Mechanical Breakdown.  As the repair facility was unable to demonstrate any failure of the primary fuel pump, that portion of the claim was denied. 

  Accordingly, the Consumer’s complaint would more appropriately be addressed to the repair facility which incorrectly diagnosed the issue with her vehicle and requested the non-covered repair. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/05/2025

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  I have spoke with the service team at the dealership and there is NO way to test a fuel pump after it is taken out of the vehicle.  The dealership would not have replaced the part if was not approved! 

  I am requesting that you maybe pay half of the $1100., because you APPROVED THE PART IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN RENEGED ON YOUR WORDS!!

  I am also requesting a CANCELLATION OF MY WARRANTY WITH YOUR COMPANY AND THE SO CALLED PRORATED PORTION REFUNDED.

   

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ****

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/27/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Warning!!! The dealership will sell you this service as a warranty. Apparently the way their contract is written it is not a standard vehicle warranty. There for MBPI states they don't have to follow warranty laws. This company will find any reason to not cover any major repairs. A huge waste of time and money.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/31/2024

  Good afternoon, 

  Based upon the information provided by the consumer, we are unable to locate a service contract issued to this consumer.  If the consumer can provide either a service contract number or the VIN number for the vehicle, we may be able to search further to identify the contract in question. 

  Sincerely, 

  ****** *******

  Regulatory Affairs Manager, MBPI

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/07/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Purchased A 2016 Hyundai Tucson from Wood Nissan with an extended warranty on 01/04/2024. The vehicle is burning oil profusely. Not Leaking, BURNING oil thru the motor. Had the vehicle to the dealer a few times. Suggested an oil consumption test to drive vehicle. Vehicle is a quart low every 13 to 14 days. Went 584 miles and need oil in 13 days. Vehicle has been in dealer shop since 04/08/2024. Needs the motor replaced. MBPI has sent 3 different inspectors to the shop. They will not replace the motor or rebuild it from the bottom up. Vehicle has a bad motor. I owned the vehicle 4 months, it's been in the dealer's shop for past 30 days. Now all I get is silence. I am still paying on the vehicle. paid $2190 for the extended warranty. They do not want to honor. They are hinting that we should drive the vehicle until the motor burns up and Hyundai will replace the engine. Bought this car for our 19 yo daughter. this vehicle would be unsafe to drive. Vehicle is still in shop today 05/07/2024 with no one talking about solving the problem. I am still paying on this vehicle which is unusable. If the motor is not replaced, the vehicle should be junked.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/10/2024

  Re: Contract ********
  
  To whom it may concern,
  
  This is a dispute regarding the resolution of a claim filed under a vehicle service contract.  The consumer’s claim has been denied by Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) due to the cause of the mechanical breakdown being expressly excluded from coverage under the vehicle service contract.  However, as the second cause of failure is covered under Hyundai special coverage policy 22**********, the consumer can return to Hyundai to process a claim for the engine replacement under said manufacturer’s warranty coverage.   
  
  On or about January 4, 2024, the consumer purchased a 2016 Hyundai Tucson Limited (“Vehicle”) from Wood Nissan Kansas City (“Selling Dealer”).  In connection with that purchase, the consumer also purchased the MBPI Extra Vehicle Service Contract # 16270509 (“Vehicle Service Contract”) from the Selling Dealer.  
  
  On or about March 27, 2024, MBPI received a call from a repair facility servicing the Vehicle which reported the Vehicle had some sort of internal failure, but they were unable to identify any oil leaks.  MBPI advised the repair facility to perform an oil consumption study and report when the Vehicle was one quart low on oil. 
  
  On or about April 8, 2024, MBPI received a call from the repair facility reporting that the Vehicle had traveled roughly 500 miles before reaching the one quart low mark. MBPI authorized the repair facility to disassemble the engine and isolate the cause of failure. 
  
  After the engine was disassembled, two causes of failure were found:
  1)  The piston rings were seized due to carbon build up which caused cylinder scoring and unnatural wear. 
  2)  A scored crankshaft rod bearing.   
  
  Regarding the first cause of failure, the piston rings being seized due to carbon buildup, the carbon deposits and resulting damage was verified by two separate inspectors.  Under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract, the contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon deposits.
  
  Regarding the second cause of failure, the scored crankshaft rod bearing, this item is covered under Hyundai special coverage policy ************.  Under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract, the contract specifically excludes coverage for the repair or replacement of a covered part while covered by a manufacturer’s warranty.  Accordingly, the consumer will need to return to Hyundai and file a claim under the special coverage policy described above to obtain coverage for the engine replacement as neither cause of failure is covered under the Vehicle Service Contract.     
  
  If there are any further questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at ###-###-#### or via email a* *************************.com. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******
  Regulatory Affairs Manager, MBPI

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/17/2024

  Re: Contract ********
  

  To Whom it may concern,
  

  Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”, “We”, “Us” and “Our”) has reviewed the additional correspondence provided by the consumer.  As we described in our initial response, the damage to the consumer’s vehicle is covered by the manufacturer under Hyundai’s special coverage policy 22-EM-006H-2 (“Hyundai Warranty”).  Accordingly, the resolution the consumer seeks must be obtained through filing a claim under the Hyundai Warranty.  As of the writing of this response, we are currently working with the consumer to assist him in locating a Hyundai dealership that can process his claim under the Hyundai Warranty. 

  With that said, regarding the consumer’s claims in the additional correspondence, to begin, throughout the consumer’s complaint and the additional correspondence the consumer refers to the motor vehicle service contract as a “warranty.”  That is incorrect, it is a motor vehicle service contract as defined under RSMO § 385.200(9).  A copy of the vehicle service contract has been attached to this response (see attached).  As the Administrator, MBPI’s role is to adjudicate any claims under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract. 

  Under those terms and conditions, the vehicle service contract does not provide coverage for any of the following:
  

        1) Any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon buildup;

       2) The repair or replacement of any part while covered by any manufacturer’s warranty;

       3) The repair or replacement of any part to correct conditions that existed prior to the Contract Purchase Date. 

  As we stated in our initial response, the first cause of failure that has been identified was the piston rings being seized due to carbon buildup which caused cylinder scoring and unnatural wear.  We have contacted the consumer and they agreed with this determination.  As we stated above, the vehicle service contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon buildup (see Contract page 6, Exclusion # 11).    

  The second cause of failure that has been identified was a scored crankshaft rod bearing.  As we have stated above and in our initial response, that failure is covered by the Hyundai Warranty (see attached Hyundai Warranty).  As we stated above, the vehicle service contract does not provide coverage for the repair or replacement of any part while covered by any manufacturer’s warranty (see Contract page 5, Exclusion # 6, and Contract page 1, second paragraph).  
  
  While the vehicle service contract does provide coverage for specific items relating to the engine, that coverage is subject to the terms and conditions of the contract.  As I have described above and in our initial response, the damage to the consumer’s vehicle is not covered due to the exclusions noted above.  The proper recourse for the consumer is to file a claim with Hyundai under the Hyundai Warranty. 
  

  While MBPI does not have any information which would lead us to believe that the condition existed prior to the contract purchase date, as the consumer now claims in their additional correspondence, if that were the case, the contract would not provide coverage for the pre-existing condition.  This is stated in bold faced text on the first page of the vehicle service contract and again in bold faced text on page 5 under General Exclusions from Coverage, Item #5. 
  

  At no point has any MBPI representative told the consumer to “drive the car until the engine fails or burns up.”  As we described in our initial response, the damage to the consumer’s vehicle is covered by the manufacturer under the Hyundai Warranty.  To obtain coverage for the engine replacement, the consumer must file a claim under the Hyundai Warranty through a Hyundai dealership.  
  

  Lastly, MBPI categorically denies the consumer’s allegation that “[MBPI] had 3 different inspectors look at the car until [MBPI] got one that would confer with [MBPI’s] refusal to repair.”  Only two (2) physical inspections of the Vehicle occurred and both determined the cause of failure to be due to the piston rings being seized due to carbon buildup.  As we have stated previously, the vehicle service contract does not provide coverage for any material breakdown caused by carbon buildup. 
  

  The first inspection occurred on or about April 17, 2024 and the inspector found the oil control rings to be seized due to carbon build up, which caused the cylinder scoring and unnatural wear.  As I described above, we have contacted the consumer and the consumer agrees with this determination that the piston rings were seized due to carbon buildup. 
  

  At the request of the repair facility, MBPI authorized a second inspection of the vehicle.  However, the inspector initially went to the incorrect location on April 25, 2024.  The actual second inspection occurred on or about April 29, 2024.  During the second inspection, the inspector also confirmed the cause of failure to be “material failure to the piston rings due to carbon buildup in the oil control rings.” 
  

  In conclusion, this is a dispute regarding the adjudication of a claim under a vehicle service contract.  The damage to the consumer’s vehicle was caused by carbon buildup.  The vehicle service contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by carbon buildup.  Additionally, there is a second cause of failure that is covered by the manufacturer under the Hyundai Warranty.  The vehicle service contract does not provide coverage for the repair or replacement of any part while covered by any manufacturer’s warranty.  Nonetheless, MBPI is currently working to assist the consumer in locating a Hyundai dealership that can process the consumer’s claim under the Hyundai Warranty.  As you can see from the information provided above, this claim was adjudicated properly and appropriately under the terms and conditions of the vehicle service contract and the consumer’s complaint can be dismissed. 
  

  If there are any further questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at ###-###-#### or via email at **************************com. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******
  Regulatory Affairs Manager, MBPI

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/21/2024

  We are working with the dealer thru MBPI to get Hyundai to resolve this issue. We purchased the warranty on the same day we purchased the car. If it became our problem on day 1 of the car purchase. It became there MBPI's problem along with us on day 1 of the car purchase. That was the point of the extended service plan. You can state previous issues that no one knew of including the dealer or car fax report. It's a catch 22..You can have it both ways. We are waiting to see what happens when the car gets to a Hyundai dealer. This issued is NOT resolved.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/16/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I paid for the premier extended warranty with Mechanical Breakdown Protection on 5/9/2020 when I purchased my used 2014 Chevy Captiva LS. I have had my first few oil changes with West Metro, as I got a few free services with the purchase of the vehicle. After those were done, I was going to a certified Chevy dealership to get my oil changes, tires, and other maintence. I have never missed a service. There is documentation of all of these services. On 12/17/2023 my Captiva stopped running and it was investigated and deteremined as no oil in the car, and that is why they are not approving this. I have never been told that the oil was low, there was no oil light on the dash, and there was no smoke indicating this. Now, Mechnical Brekdown Protection is saying they will not cover this due to a lack of maintence. I would like to have you fight on my behalf to get them to cover this so Wayzata Chevy can do the maintence to get my car back up and running. I am in the process of getting a copy of the oil change/maintenance records and will be able to provide this at a later date.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/17/2024

  To whom it may concern:
  

  Upon review of the consumer’s claim file, the claim was not denied “due to a lack of maintenance.” 
  

  The consumer’s vehicle suffered a catastrophic failure to the timing chain which allowed the valves to contact each other.  This was caused by the vehicle being operated while low on oil.  Upon examination, there was no oil present on the dipstick, thus the vehicle was missing multiple quarts of oil.  This low oil directly contributed to the engine failure described above. 
  

  Under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract, the contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids.  Accordingly, the consumer’s claim was properly denied.  

  If you have any further questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at either ************ or via email at *****************************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/23/2024

  see attached

  Good afternoon,

   

  This is in response to the response provided by the Consumer on January 19, 2024. 

   

  Regarding whether or not the customer received a full copy of the Vehicle Service Contract when she purchased the vehicle from West Metro Buick GMC (“West Metro”) on May 9, 2020, Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) was not the seller of the contract, and thus can neither confirm nor deny what may have been provided to her by the selling dealer in connection with her purchase of the vehicle and the accompanying Vehicle Service Contract.  If she did not receive a full copy of the Vehicle Service Contract at the time of purchase, that complaint would need to be addressed with the selling dealer, West Metro.  I have attached a full copy of the Vehicle Service Contract to this response. 

   

  Of note, on the first page of the Vehicle Service Contract, just above the consumer’s signature, she acknowledges “that you have read, understand and accept the Terms and Conditions of this Contract”.  Under those Terms and Conditions, the Vehicle Service Contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids (see Exclusions from Coverage item 11). 

   

  Regarding the consumer’s claim that she “had no indication that the oil was low,” two indicator lights could potentially have illuminated:

  • CHANGE ENGINE OIL NOW
  • OIL PRESSURE LOW STOP ENGINE

  However, the vehicle’s computer does not store records regarding the illumination of these type of warning indicators.  Regardless, the Vehicle Service Contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids.  I have attached a copy of the inspection report to this response.

   

  Regarding the maintenance that was performed on the vehicle by Chevrolet of Wayzata, that repair facility is not affiliated with MBPI and we have no knowledge of what they may or may not have informed her regarding the status of the vehicle, or what maintenance Chevrolet of Wayzata may or may not have performed on the vehicle.  Again, the claim has not been denied due to a lack of maintenance records.  The claim has been denied because the Vehicle Service Contract does not provide coverage for any mechanical breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids and, in the case of the consumer’s claim, the mechanical breakdown was caused by inadequate oil.  Accordingly, the claim is not covered under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract.   

   

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/24/2024

   
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  I don't feel that this issue was in any way my fault and I should not feel responsible for this. There was no indication of the oil being low and it was never mentioned by the Certified dealership (Wayzata Chev). MBPI claimed it could have potentially illuminated change engine oil now or oil pressure low stop engine but neither appeared on the dash at any time. MBPI is claiming that Chevrolet of Wayzata is not affiliated with them, where does a person need to go to get correct maintenance then? This is a Certified dealership and they should be trusting of what was performed on the car by them. There was documentation of all records showing that there was routine oil changes and work completed. Both MBPI and the dealership should have to find a resolution to this.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** **********

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/27/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I purchased a service contract/ warranty for 3 year coverage from MBPI through ******** ****** of Sedalia, MO when I purchased a 2007 Corvette Z06 a little over a year ago. The car broke down with catastrophic engine failure. They sent an inspector and confirmed the engine was "seized" which is what the mechanics found. They asked for proof of maintenance/ oil changes, which I provided all 4 showing I complied. The company asked the mechanic shop to drain the oil and they found 3 quarts when the car holds a capacity of 8 quarts. MBPI denied the claim and blamed the shop that did the last oil change. This shop I have used for years and sat there and WATCHED through a glass wall as they changed the oil and I checked it prior to leaving as always. MBPI is saying since the inspector they sent found no sign of an oil leak they were denying the claim because how could 5 quarts of oil go missing without a leak? "So it had to be the oil change" was their words. I was there to see the oil change and I was there when my car broke down and had smoke pouring out of the exhaust AND OIL leaking onto the street from the exhaust. They said their inspector did not see "staining" on the exhaust to indicate this. REGARDLESS........I KNOW the oil was changed, even verified it prior to leaving......and the service contract states it covers "any internally lubricated part". The FIRST words out of the mechanics mouths when they saw the engine was "seized" were "it had to be some type of internal component such as valve guides, pistons, rods, etc and the engine locked up and oil loss resulted". How can an inspector spending a few minutes looking at a car counter experienced mechanics? MBPI claims the lack of oil caused the failure. Myself and the mechanics hold that internal failure caused the catastrophic oil loss. Now I am paying 700 monthly for a car that doesn't run INCLUDING money to MBPI in the loan for a warranty for an engine that no longer exists, thanks to MBPI.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/03/2023

  This letter is in response to the complaint described above (the “Complaint”) wherein the consumer disputes the denial of a claim which was filed under a Vehicle Service Contract.  Upon review, the denial of the claim was proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract. 
  According to our records, the consumer’s vehicle was brought into the repair facility for a catastrophic engine failure.  Our inspector verified that the engine oil was low.  There were no external leaks, and the exhaust tips were dry, indicating the vehicle was not burning an excessive amount of oil.  The repair facility then drained and measured the oil present in the vehicle.  This engine holds eight (8) quarts of oil but only three (3) quarts were measured.  This means that the system was operating at 38% of the total system capacity, which lead to the catastrophic engine lockup. 
  A representative of Mechanical Breakdown Protection, Inc. (“MBPI”) explained to the consumer that the failure was due to a lack of lubrication.  For a 2007 Corvette, there are two different engine configurations. One configuration holds five (5) quarts of oil, while the second configuration, the consumer’s vehicle’s engine configuration, holds eight (8) quarts.  It appears that the repair facility that performed the most recent oil change mistakenly added only five (5) quarts.  If that were the case, it would cause the oil to superheat and slowly burn off until the oil level becomes too low to operate the engine.  This matches what occurred with the consumer’s vehicle.  MBPI representatives explained this to the consumer and recommended that the consumer contact the repair facility that performed the most recent oil change and obtain documentation (i.e., photographic proof) of the measurement of oil removed from his vehicle.  The consumer declined. 
  In the complaint, the consumer claims that an “internal failure caused the catastrophic oil loss.”  This is not possible.  As I described above, there were no external leaks and no oil present in the exhaust.  Contrary to the allegations in the consumer’s complaint, the inspector’s findings are consistent with the information the consumer received from the repair facility representative.  There likely was a failure of bearing, pistons, or rods, but that failure, and the resulting catastrophic engine failure, was caused by the lack of lubrication.  
  Under the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract, the service contract expressly excludes coverage for any Mechanical Breakdown caused by inadequate lubricants or fluids.   Accordingly, the denial of the consumer’s claim was correct and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Service Contract. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:01/05/2023

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  MBPI made no payment to my car lender knowing they were obligated to. I submitted all necessary paperwork and explained that insurance did not pay the lender and they still did nothing. I purchased their services to prevent something disastrous like this. I just want them to pay what they owe.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/03/2023

  This is in response to Complaint ID ******** (the “Complaint”).  In the Complaint, the consumer alleges that MBPI failed to pay the amount owed under a GAP Waiver contract after the consumer filed a claim for the total loss of the vehicle.  This is incorrect.  MBPI reviewed the materials provided by the consumer and processed the consumer’s claim under the terms and conditions of the GAP Waiver. 
  On or about July 17, 2022 (“Date of Loss”), the consumer was involved in an accident which rendered the vehicle inoperable due to tire/wheel damage.  At this point, the damage to the vehicle, according to the 3rd party insurance estimate, amounted to $2,195.56.  However, instead of having the vehicle towed to a repair facility, the consumer drove the vehicle on a flat tire to a hotel parking lot where it subsequently caught fire.  According to the claim report provided by the 3rd party insurance, “the rotational damage and friction generated a high amount of heat which led to a combustion that developed into a fire.”  This is also confirmed by the fire report provided by College Park Fire and Rescue.  “Driver/owner of vehicle found in hotel and was able to explain that they were involved in an accident earlier and drove vehicle to parking lot on flat tire.  Presumed that heat from driving on flat tire caused vehicle fire.”  As a result, the 3rd party insurance only took responsibility for the damage caused by the initial accident and did not cover additional damage caused by the consumer’s continued operation of the vehicle and resulting fire. 
  On the Date of Loss, the consumer did not have insurance coverage on the vehicle.  Under the terms and conditions of the GAP Waiver, in the event there is no primary insurance carrier coverage in effect on the date of loss, the financial institution waives the difference between the Net Payoff as of the Date of Loss and the Actual Cash Value.   The Actual Cash Value of the Vehicle (the retail value of the vehicle, on the Date of Loss, as listed in the NADA Used Car Guide) was determined to be $20,325.00.  The Net Payoff is the consumer’s unpaid balance ($16,453.16), as of the Date of Loss, reduced by the recoverable portion of financed charges such as refunds from the cancellation of a Vehicle Service Contract ($978.90) and the GAP Waiver in question ($735.24).  As the Net Payoff amount is less than the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle, the GAP amount is $0.     
  In conclusion, the reason that the consumer’s claim under the GAP Waiver did not result in a payment to the lienholder is not for the reasons the consumer described in the Complaint.  On the Date of Loss, the consumer did not have insurance coverage for the vehicle and was involved in an accident which rendered the vehicle inoperable. Despite this, the consumer drove the vehicle on a flat tire long enough that it caused a fire.  Under the terms and conditions of the GAP Waiver, if there is not primary insurance coverage for the vehicle on the date of loss, the GAP amount is based on the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle.  Since the Actual Cash Value of the vehicle exceeded the consumer’s unpaid balance, there is not a GAP amount under the GAP Waiver.  Accordingly, this claim was handled correctly under the terms and conditions of the GAP Waiver purchased by the consumer.