Service Contract Issue.

[jkeller2791]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

I will copy/paste this from the FTC/BBB/Oregon DOJ complaints I have filed. Omitting of course the personal information. I believe this is covered by The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 1975, and the Unlawful Trade Act here in Oregon.

Complaint Description:
I purchased a used vehicle that was provided with a 3rd Party Service Contract. The dealer incorrectly, perhaps knowingly, did not fill out the Service Contract properly nor did the pay the additional surcharge to ensure a vehicle with a lift kit and oversized tires was covered. The vehicle was purchased with these existing modifications from the dealer when the service contract was agreed upon. Three days after purchasing the vehicle there was a transmission failure. I called the Service Contract Provider and checked to see if there were specific instructions to follow when seeking repairs. I was informed that they had a "Fleet Contract" with AAMCO Transmissions, so I agreed to take the vehicle to that facility for repair. (In hopes of saving them some money.) After dismantling the transmission the repair facility contacted the Service Contract Provider to authorize the parts, the Service Contract Provider decided to send an inspector. The inspector noticed the lift kit and the oversized tires and denied the claim. I have attempted to work this out as an adult and have contacted the dealership numerous times to reach an agreement. I have not been offered anything close to what I was originally supposed to be covered for.

Your Desired Resolution:
I am seeking full compensation of the repair minus the new clutch kit. Repair =$1,740 - clutch kit $85=$1,655 plus the cost of the rental vehicle +$410 = 2,065. I would also like a clearly worded written contract to provide the comparable coverage that the Service Contract was supposed to provide in the first place. Total= $2,065 + Valid Service Contract. I believe that in complete fairness that the time lapsed should not be reflected in the valid service contract, as I have no current coverage without legal action.

 

[Zigner]

The most you can reasonably expect is to be reimbursed the amount you paid for the service contract. The tranny, etc., is on you.

 

[jkeller2791]

The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act states...

"In addition, dealers and manufacturers cannot disclaim implied warranties on vehicles if they offer a service contract, an extended warranty, mechanical breakdown insurance, or other similar warranties."

"The Magnuson-Moss Act does not require any dealer or manufacturer to provide a written warranty. The Act allows businesses to determine whether to warrant their products in writing. However, once a dealer or manufacturer decides to offer a written warranty on a vehicle, it must comply with the Act."

"Obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms. A manufacturer or dealer cannot offer a warranty that appears to provide coverage but, in fact, provides none. For example, a warranty covering only "moving parts" on an electronic product that has no moving parts would be deceptive and unlawful. Similarly, a warranty that promised service that the warrantor had no intention of providing or could not provide would be deceptive and unlawful."

I am following this up with several attorneys, all of them say it is valid but not economically feasible... the BBB, State Attorney General, and the State Department of Justice.

 

[Zigner]

A service contract is not a warranty.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

A service contract is not a warranty.

I think the point is because the must still honor an implied warranty even though the dealer sold the service contract.

Another interesting point is that if the lift kit caused the damage, as claimed by the 'inspector', the dealer sold a defective vehicle.

But...

If the inspector is simply claiming that the lift kit voids the service contract, that's a different story.

Personally, I would hold the dealer liable, and go to small claims court if necessary. OP only drove the vehicle for three days before it died.

 

[Zigner]

I think the point is because the must still honor an implied warranty even though the dealer sold the service contract.

Another interesting point is that if the lift kit caused the damage, as claimed by the 'inspector', the dealer sold a defective vehicle.

But...

If the inspector is simply claiming that the lift kit voids the service contract, that's a different story.

Personally, I would hold the dealer liable, and go to small claims court if necessary. OP only drove the vehicle for three days before it died.

The OP is entitled to have the cost of the service contract refunded...

 

[jkeller2791]

Since the Service Contract was actually included in the price of the vehicle, no additional cost to me, it actually falls into a gray area somewhere between a service contract and a warranty. (As explained by an attorney during my consultation.)

During my consultation I was told that the cost of pursuing this could climb pretty high and is likely not economically feasible. If arbitration is required it is basically paying the same costs before it even gets to court. I completely understand this important factor.

I had, accidentally, contacted the Auto Dealers attorney looking for a consultation. I was told there would be a conflict of interest. Since then
the dealer is now contacting me at least once a day to settle this out of court or arbitration, however only wants to do one of the following... not both.

Half the repair cost minus the clutch kit.

Or is offering a 12 month/12,000 mile "bumper to bumper" Service Contract from the same company that denied the repairs previously.

 

[xylene]

I have really no idea why you would be entitled to rental car expenses.

 

[jkeller2791]

Update:

Dealer in question paid for the repair in full. After a Demand Letter and consultation with his attorney it appears everything was set up in my favor. Only the cost of the rental car was not covered.

I have read around in these forums and time after time you see.... "no reason to sue" or "you do not have any recourse" type statements. While I agree that for the most part people are "sue crazy" and out for a buck there are indeed legal courses to pursue if you have been truly wronged. My advice for some of the senior posters in these forums is to try and give constructive advice, or at least provide legal responses, in the forms of links, to valid laws that pertain to the OP's State of Residence.

This isn't the first time the responders have been completely wrong with their advice to me in these forums. If you are just looking for a reason to be "snotty" or "arrogant" then perhaps you need to hook back up with your ex-wife.

 

[Zigner]

Update:

Dealer in question paid for the repair in full. After a Demand Letter and consultation with his attorney it appears everything was set up in my favor. Only the cost of the rental car was not covered.

I have read around in these forums and time after time you see.... "no reason to sue" or "you do not have any recourse" type statements. While I agree that for the most part people are "sue crazy" and out for a buck there are indeed legal courses to pursue if you have been truly wronged. My advice for some of the senior posters in these forums is to try and give constructive advice, or at least provide legal responses, in the forms of links, to valid laws that pertain to the OP's State of Residence.

This isn't the first time the responders have been completely wrong with their advice to me in these forums. If you are just looking for a reason to be "snotty" or "arrogant" then perhaps you need to hook back up with your ex-wife.

So, the dealer caved in order not to deal with it. Doesn't mean they were wrong, just means they felt it was better to pay for the repair (from a financial standpoint) than it was to continue arguing.

Congrats.