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:11/03/2022

  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.

  ******* (*******************)
  1-800-457-7703 ext. 4147
  Supervisor *** (****************)
  1-800-457-7703 ext. 7011
  
  RE: Service Contract EF00289204 (VIN Last 6: D99940)
  
  I am the Contract Holder of the Performance First - ULTIMATE PROTECTION Vehicle Service Contract for the 2016 BMW 740i referenced above. I have been denied my claim for engine valve cover repair to my vehicle BMW of Las Vegas, including the denial of the towing benefit and the rental car. I have paid out-of-pocket BMW Invoice $3915.17 including tow and diagnostic, $745.50 for rental.
  
  I called and spoke to **** G your Adjuster on 11-/3/22 and explained: Your denial is based on the terms and conditions of the Contract and Declarations Page attached that states in bold “The Waiting Period” is thirty (30) days AND one-thousand (1,000) miles from the Purchase Contract Date.”
  
  This condition does not apply and application of this in my Claim is erroneous based on the Contact’s previous paragraph (III. GENERAL PROVISIONS, (A) Contract Period. This states, “Coverage under this Contract begins on the Contract Purchase Date (CPD) shown in the Declarations Page…”
  
  My vehicle purchase and vehicle service contract purchase (shown in the Declarations page ALL match on October 14, 2022) are on the same date. Therefore the Coverage began on the CPD. The only clause that does not apply to the Mandatory Waiting Period is here:
  
  “Any purchase 10 or more days after the original vehicle purchase date, or if the original purchase date is unknown, is subject to a MANDATORY “Waiting Period” before Coverage begins.”
  
  This clearly does not apply, and therefore my Claim should be approved and paid.
  
  I certainly plan to file in Court based on the facts of the Claim, the vehicle’s full BMW service history in my possession, and Contract Documents showing I am not subject to the Waiting Period since the vehicle and service contract was sold to me at the exact same time. Total reimbursement requested $4660.67.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/07/2022

  This
  response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau complaint of ***** ******, Complaint ID 18352112, received on November 3,
  2022.
  
  Thank
  you for patience while we further investigated this ****er. Upon review of Mr. ******’s
  claim file we determined that Mr. ****** contacted us to start a claim on
  November 3, 2022.  We contacted the
  repair shop to get estimates of his mechanical breakdown.  Mr. ******’s claim has not been denied and
  his claim is currently opened and active. 
  
  Should you require additional
  information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/28/2022

  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 bought a 2010 Camaro from California MOTORS Direct on 07/20/2022. I also bought an Extended warranty. I paid $5,000.00 for a bumper to bumper warranty.
  The 1st week I had the car I got trouble codes saying there was an issue with the motor. So I took the car to Ca. MOTORS Direct. They were paid to repair whatever was the issue with the motor. however all they did was cleared the OBD2 code and sent the car home. 2 weeks latrer again the car was throwing engine problem trouble codes and 2 pistons blew out the sides of the engine causing a catastrophic engine failure. the car was towed to M.K.SMITH Chevy dealeership. They refused to fix the problem due to too many issues. so the car was towed to the Chevy dealership in Azusa. they tried to contact the warranty company for 5 weeks with no resolve. The warranty co. refused to call them back to start a claim, so the car was towed to Mtn. View Chevy. there the car sat for a month waiting for the warranty company to send an inspector out to inspect the car. The inspector finally came out on 10/10/2022.He stated the car needed a new motor and new exhaust system totalling $17,000.00.He also said to begin the work and repair the Camaro. Then on 10/18 he was sent out to reinspect my car. This time he decided to reject the repairs and refused to pay for the TEAR DOWN they demanded for inspection. They were rejecting the repairs due to excess engine wear, lack of motor oil, which all leaked out when the 2 pistons shot threw the engine and exhaust system. i only had the car for 2 weeks to drive the car sat for repairs for almost 3 months. They said if i didnt cause the damage then it was pre-existing and not covered.If it wasn't preexisting then i abused it,both wont be covered. So now im stuck with a car im financing that needs $17,000 for a new motor and $5,000.00 for the exhaust system. my credit will be destroyed and now i have no vehicle since i traded in my car for a trade in.Now im in jeopaedy of losing my job.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/03/2022

  This
  response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau complaint of ** *******, Complaint ID ********, received on October 28,
  2022.
  
  Thank
  you for patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of Mr. ******* claim file, we determined, after obtaining two separate inspections, that the
  cause of the mechanical failure was due to extensive engine damage resulting
  from excessive abuse caused by the failure to protect engine from lack of lubrication
  and the continued operation of the vehicle while in a failed state. With two
  separate inspections conducted, and both arriving at the same conclusion,
  namely that the mechanical failure here was directly attributable to abuse from
  continued operation in a failed state and lack of lubrication, both of which
  are excluded from coverage under Mr. ******* contract. These exclusions may be
  found in Mr. ******* contract under Section V. WHAT IS NOT COVERED, item D. As
  both these conditions, continued operation in a failed state and lack of lubrication,
  are excluded from coverage, Mr. ******* claim was properly denied.
  
  Thus, Allegiance was
  able to establish that we are standing with our decision to deny Mr. ******** claim
  for those reasons set forth above.

  
  Should you require additional
  information, please feel free to contact me at ********************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/26/2022

  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.

  As a consumer, I have the right to have my vehicle repaired under the terms of the warranty. On August 26, 2022, we took the vehicle to the repair shop prior to the expiration of the warranty because the check engine light came on and there was a reading that something was wrong with the torque converter. We picked up the vehicle from the repair shop on September 29, 2022, after being told that the vehicle was ready. However, before we could get home, the check engine light came back on. This is why we had originally taken it to be repaired! So, again, Before we could get the vehicle home, the check engine light came on. We returned back to the shop on that same day, 9/29/2022. We live 2.7 miles from the repair shop and HAD NOT EVEN MADE IT HOME!
  
  AGAIN, on 9/29/2022, ****, the service advisor verified that the check engine light was on again. He verified that it was the same issue that we originally took the car in for. He verified this by scanning for a code. He scanned it and got the exact Code for the torque converter. Again, this was the same day that we picked the vehicle up from the shop and we had not traveled more than two miles when the light came back on. I have proof in my texts of me asking **** why the light was still on.
  
  While at the shop on 9/29/2022, after scanning the Jeep for the code and seeing the same code as on 8/26/2022, **** told us that there would be no one to look at the car until Tuesday, 10/4/2022, and to bring it back then. He said that the warranty would be fine because he documented that we did not even get the car home when the same problem (the check engine light) persisted. We returned the car back to the shop, as instructed on October 4, 2022, where it has remained. So, the car has been in the shop for a total of 9 weeks. There is no reason to deny this claim when we did not even make it home with the car. The repair shop did not tell us that the problem was not resolved until we took the vehicle back.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/02/2022

  This
  response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau complaint of ***** *******, Complaint ID ********, received on October 26,
  2022.
  
  Thank
  you for patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of Ms. ********* file, we were able to establish that we are standing with our decision of the
  denial of Ms. ********* October 7, 2022, claim as Ms. ********* contract
  expired on September 1, 2022 .    
  
  Ms.
  ******* had a claim which was filed on August 26, 2022, and even though it was
  very close to the expiration date of September 1, 2022, that claim was authorized
  and paid, in a total amount of $2,526.16, check # ******. The next claim that was
  called in on Ms. ********* behalf was called in on October 7, 2022, 36 days after
  the contract had expired. We cannot provide coverage on an expired contract.
  
  Of
  note and importance, Ms. ********* vehicle was driven over 280 additional miles
  following the completion of the August 26, 2022, repair and the next claim called
  in on October 7, 2022. Someone was putting miles on the vehicle at just below
  the adjusted average miles per day rate in the US and the vehicle had been
  released to Ms. ******* following the completion of the August 26, 2022, repair.
  
  However,
  the pertinent and dispositive issue is that the claim being disputed by Ms.
  ******* was called in 36 days after her contract had expired.
  This cannot be disputed as it is simply calendar dates and existing facts on
  record like the expiration date of her contract and the claims file clearly
  showing the October 7, 2022, call in date. As stated, we cannot provide
  coverage on an expired contract and Ms. ********* contract had been expired for
  well over a month—it was not a close call. Therefore Ms. ********* October 7,
  2022, claim was properly denied.
  
  
  Should you require additional
  information, please feel free to contact me at *********************

  Business Response

  Date: 11/22/2022

  This
  response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau rejection of ***** ******** Complaint ID ********, of Allegiance
  Administrators, LLC’s response to her complaint, received on November 18, 2022.
  
  Ms.
  ********* rejection is based upon her same themes set forth in her complaint,
  ignoring the response from Allegiance Administrators. Put simply, the
  undisputed facts are these: Ms. ********* vehicle was in for repair on August
  26, 2022. It was repaired and Allegiance Administrators paid over $2,500.00 for
  that repair. The vehicle was returned to Ms. *******. The vehicle then
  accumulated over 280 additional miles. Then Ms. ******* claims that something happened
  to the vehicle, and it was brought back into the repair shop 36 days after her
  contract expired.
  
  There
  are two pertinent issues here, both of which are ignored by Ms. ********* rejection.
  
  First,
  the vehicle had been repaired based upon a claim that was called in three days
  prior to the expiration of Ms. ********* contract. That claim was paid as it
  was timely made. Her contract then expired. All of Allegiance Administrators’
  contract obligations to Ms. ******* ceased as of the expiration date of her
  contract. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Ms. ********* claim
  made after her contract expired is denied as there is no obligation existing
  between the parties after her contract expired.
  
  Second,
  Ms. ******* drove off in her vehicle after the August 26 repair, putting over
  280 miles on the vehicle in the intervening 36 days. Thus, the vehicle was
  working when Ms. ******* left the repair facility. In fact, the vehicle worked
  for another 280 plus miles and then had an issue. This is not in dispute, as it
  is simply recorded facts. Whatever the issue was, Ms. ********* service contract
  expired, then hundreds of miles after her vehicle left the repair facility, she
  attempted to get yet another benefit from an expired contract. Once her contract
  expired, all contractual obligations between the parties ceased.
  
  Which
  relates to another point that Ms. ******* raises—her request for arbitration as
  she disagrees that her claim called in 36 days after the contract expired
  should have been denied. However, and for similar reasons, once Ms. ********* contract expired, there were no remaining contractual obligations between the
  parties, including the obligation to arbitrate. Arbitration is a contractual
  right, which expires. Ms. ********* claim was not in process during the
  contract’s expiration. As such, there is no overlap in obligation in the manner
  she suggests. The contract is expired, and all contractual rights and
  obligations thereto are therefore expired, including arbitration.
  
  Ms.
  ********* claim called in on a contract that had been expired for over a month
  was properly denied and she has no right to the contractual obligation of
  arbitration, again, because her contract expired.
  
  Should you require additional
  information, please feel free to contact me at *********************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/22/2022

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  
  
  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because: the Original claim from 8/26/2022 was not addressed, as the warranty company alleges it was.  The shop made OTHER REPAIRS TO THE VEHICLE but it did not repair the Torque Vonverter which is why I took the vehicle to the shop.  The repair shop put mile on the vehicle.  I did not.  Still, the check engine light came on when we had only driven it less than 2 miles.  So, mileage is not the issue.  The original claim was to repair the torque converter based on the check engine light coming on and getting the code.  The vehicle remained at the shop.  The warranty company is not addressing the fact that we picked up the car on 9/30 and returned it the same day, with the check engine light on and getting the same reading.  The repair shop has confirmed this timeline and has also confirmed that it did not make the necessary repairs that was needed to fix the original claim from 8/26/2022. If the torque converter was covered on 8/26/2022 the claim should be paid.  Arbitration is necessary or I will be filing a complaint with the Stare of Georgia Consumer Protection Agency.  What is sad is that I still have 3 years left in another warranty with this company who is being dishonest.  
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  ***** *******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/10/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore 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.

  8/28-9/1: Traveled to TX, bought a used SUV on 8/29 with warranty from Renascent Protection Solutions (“RPS”).
  9/1-3: Drove home to OR, about a 2,500-mile trip. Once home, at some point, I noticed a faint noise that eventually grew louder.
  9/20-21: Took the car to an OR dealership for repair. Mechanic said struts failed and were working with RPS on warranty coverage.
  9/25: Received a call from a Claims Adjustor (“CA”). I said I may have heard noise on the way home to OR but was unsure, but definitely started hearing it once in OR and was driving city streets. Also said IF I lived in TX, I would have first gone back to local dealer about the issue.
  9/26: RPS denied the claim, claiming the issue was pre-existing, based on the amount of time from purchase to when the concern was noticed.
  9/27: I responded asking for: (1) a better explanation of why the repair was classified as pre-existing and for sufficient evidence and (2) where the warranty stipulates a minimum amount of time to occur before a claim is made. RPS never responded to this or to a follow-up sent on 9/28.
  10/3: Called the CA who said he said he needed to have a supervisor call me. No call came.
  10/5-6: Called the CA again multiple times, no answer.
  10/10: Called the main line and talked to a supervisor, who explained the claim was denied because I said the failure occurred on the way home and that I would have taken it back to the dealer. Both statements were misrepresented. I said (1) I may have heard noise on the way home but was unsure, (2) that on the way home was a 2,500-mile trip, and (3) that IF I lived in TX I would have gone back to local dealer. Supervisor said the repair was still not covered because struts failed, and warranty does not cover shocks. I’m no mechanic, so I asked if struts and shocks were the same thing. He said they were. I called mechanic one last time, and they explained that the upper mounts failed, which caused struts to fail and that mounts and insulators should be covered

  Business Response

  Date: 10/21/2022

  This
  response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow up of the complaint
  of ******* *******, Complaint
  ID 18194125, received by us October
  10, 2022.
  
  Thank
  you for your patience while we investigated this matter. Upon review of files,
  we were able to ascertain that Mr. *******’ claim was a rubbing noise when
  turning left or right due to both front air struts leaking oil.  The claim was initially denied because the
  adjuster believed Mr. ******* said he noticed the issue right away.  However, after further review, this claim was
  approved.  Mr. ******* should return to
  the repair facility and contact us, or he should send in the invoice if he has
  paid for the repairs. 
  
  Should you require additional information, please
  feel free to contact me at [email protected].

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/28/2022

  [A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
  
  
  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I accept the business's response to resolve this complaint.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  **** *******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/03/2022

  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.

  Allegiance is the admin for CarChex Warranty. Had Titanium Coverage was told it was same as a bumper to bumper warranty. Did not honor warranty. Did not have pre existing condition. Please people save your money. This company will do everything in it's power to deny a claim. Several Federal and State lawsuits were filed against Allegiance. Now they are using a name call Renascent Protection Services to hide all complaints. CarChex Warranty, Allegiance is the admin of the warranty. The people will scam and take your money. Don't know how they live with themselves taking people's hard earn money. They don't answer phone calls, return phone calls and even hang up on you. Buyer Beware!!

  Business Response

  Date: 10/10/2022

  This
  response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau complaint of ******* *****, Complaint ID 18160795, received on October 3,
  2022.
  
  Thank
  you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of
  Mr. ******* file, we were able to establish that we are standing with our
  decision regarding the denial of Mr. ******* claim as the matters comprising
  Mr. ******* claim are not covered under his contract. 
  
  Mr.
  ******* claim has been denied as his contract has a waiting period which is
  listed under Section III. GENERAL PROVISIONS, under A, Contract Period. This
  section reads, “Coverage begins after the ‘Waiting Period’ which is the later
  of thirty (30) days and one thousand (1,000) miles or sixty (60) days and five
  hundred (500) miles from the Contract Purchase Date”. Mr. Olson’s
  claim was called in only seventeen (17) days after purchase. The waiting period
  is expressly stated in Mr. ******* contract, and he called in the claim during
  the Waiting Period before the Coverage began. Thus, Mr. ******* claim was
  properly denied.
  
  If
  Mr. ***** would like to cancel his contract as he stated in the complaint, we
  would be more than happy to oblige.  Mr.
  ***** would need review Section VI. General, Section B. Cancellation Provisions
  as those provisions apply to the cancellation of his contract. He will also
  need to take into consideration any state disclosure that applies to the
  cancellation provisions.
  
  
  Should you require additional
  information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/20/2022

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  
  
  Complaint: 18160795
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because: You told me the claim was denied on other matter not coverage dates. You continuously lie about all isuues and still lying about this BBB complaint responseI have had the Silver coverage for over a year then was sold a Titanium coverage. Silver coverage began in 2021. Upgraded to Titanium Coverage of September  10, 2022. I was within my 30/day 1,000 mile.. I never had a gap in coverage and always made my payments on time. Per several BBB complaints and lawsuits. I will be filing a lawsuit to resolve this breach of contract and fraud.
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  ******* *****

  Business Response

  Date: 10/21/2022

  This
  response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow up to the complaint
  of ******* *****, Complaint
  ID 18160795, received by us on
  October 21, 2022.
  
  Thank
  you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of
  files, we were unable to substantiate Mr. ******* claim of “upgrading” his
  contract to some higher level of coverage. We only have a record of Mr. ******* current contract and have no other contracts on file under his name or VIN. 
  
  Mr.
  ******* claim has been denied as his contract has a waiting period which is
  listed under Section III. GENERAL PROVISIONS, under A, Contract Period. This
  section reads, “Coverage begins after the ‘Waiting Period’ which is the later
  of thirty (30) days and one thousand (1,000) miles or sixty (60) days and five
  hundred (500) miles from the Contract Purchase Date”. Mr. ***** admits
  in his follow response submitted on October 20, 2022, that he “was within his
  30 day/1,000 mile”, thus proving his claim was called in during the
  specifically stated Waiting Period. The waiting period is expressly stated in
  Mr. ******* contract, and he called in the claim during the Waiting Period
  before the Coverage began.
  
  Having
  no other contract in Mr. ******* name, this current claim was properly denied.
  If Mr. ***** has a prior contract in his possession, he should share it. It is
  possible that he had a contract from another company and then purchased this
  contract. If he had an initial contract that was serviced by another company,
  that would explain his confusion, but not vary the denial on this present
  claim.
  
  Should you require additional
  information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].