Warranty Administration Services

The vehicle was purchased in March 2007 and included the Warranty Administration Services warranty for $100,000 coverage of the engine and transmission. The vehicle is a 2000 Dodge Ram 3500 15-passenger van. The payment was made through the car dealer at the time I purchased the van. The agreement number is: **. Their current warranty claim ID is: **. The claim was filed on August 27, 2010. The problem occurred on August 25, 2010. The nature of the problem is the transmission second gear does not function.

There is no check engine light and the transmission shifts from first to third with no issues. I have been in contact with WAS many times using email messages--as they state they are limited to only communicating in writing and do not offer any phone contact service of any kind. I have called two times but was only answered by Customer Service staff who stated they knew no details of my claim. Each contact with WAS has stated that the claim remains denied. I was told that Warranty Administration Services did not write, nor do they own the service contract I have. However, their name is on the original document. I sent many service receipts to WAS for their evaluation.

There were two where they based their denial upon. The first reject was on a variety of services done on the van when I left the vehicle at the shop overnight. The receipt I had stated the day's work but not the payment. The next day's receipt showed the payment. The WAS reject is based upon the service receipt on day #1 that did not show the method of payment on day #2. The agreement required the receipt to show the method of payment be on the date of service. This was impossible to accomplish. It was impossible at the time of service because the Brakes Plus Shop could not combine transactions over multiple days.

After WAS denied the claim, I contacted Brakes Plus. I was given a duplicate receipt from their electronic system that showed both the service and the method of payment combined into one. The second receipt was an oil-change service. It was rejected because it did not have my name on it. I had loaned the van to a friend who drove it to Arkansas and noticed that it needed an oil change. He went to Walmart in Arkansas. That receipt states the license plate ID and the VIN of the van. There is no doubt that it was the van that got the oil changed.

Warranty Administration Services denied the claim because that receipt had David's name and not Richard's name on the receipt. Recall that it is the transmission that has broken and not the engine. As I have tried to respond to the denials from WAS, each attempt has been ignored. There seems to be no ability on their part to allow for a clarification of information that may be missing. When I complied with their requirements, I was informed that any receipt provided for the purpose of complying with the agreement would be rejected by WAS. Basically, any receipt or information I provided after their initial denial was rejected. Warranty Administration Services does not argue that the services were done as specified or on schedule to my van.

They deny the claim based upon minor technical details within their agreement. The agreement cannot be adhered to because of at least three criterias:

1. WAS wants to specify how service businesses must operate. My example is Brakes Plus and their computerized service processing system.

2. WAS requires me--the named agreement owner--to be the sole person able to do maintenance on the vehicle. Not a friend and not my wife.

3. WAS creates an unreasonable demand that I cannot loan my car to another user. If David gets the oil changed or if he did not do it as specified, then WAS is able to deny the claim. Both actions result in denial. WAS is managing their agreement with near impossibility of compliance by even the most careful owners. Apparently, denial is built into their agreement

Purchased two warranties for 2002 SAAB 9-3 and 2003 Lincoln Aviator. Paid for extended coverage, after grace period of 1 month and 1000 miles from contract start dates. The SAAB blew a piston in December 25, 2009, over 3 months after contract start, and over 1600 miles on the odometer. The SAAB dealership opened the engine at my expense, recommended replacing with like and kind engine, (about $5400.00, which would exceed the actual cash value of the car). WAS rejected the claim as preexisting. Getting them to respond WAS almost impossible.

After 4-5 months, filed with the BBB in N. California, and at that time, WAS "instantly" recognized their error, and "profusely apologized", but said they would only pay to repair the single piston, $1857.00. By this time, the engine had been left open for 5 months, and the repair facilities were not recommending this action. I refused the offer and WAS went dark. They only returned one call, and never responded to a certified letter to their legal compliance office. They split their operations between Nevada, California and the internet shows WAS, filed incorporation in Texas.

There are two principles named Robert ** and James ** and Murray ** is the registered agent. I petitioned to restart the claims process after 7 months, by fax, email and the registered mail, but no response. I towed the car to another repair facility to submit the claim, and WAS told them to tear the entire engine down and prove that a new engine would be needed. Then they said that "the owner had refused the offer of the piston and he would have to contact legal compliance. So far, a month has passed by without getting hold of anyone at WAS.

There number 877-554-9863 is unmanned, and voice mail never is answered. I filed complaints with the AZ Attorney General who referred me to the Consumer Complaints, who referred me to the Nevada Attorney General office, Consumer complaints. A "John" answered for the office and said this type of auto warranty did not fall under the insurance purvue, and there was little they could do. The BBB rating for this company is an F out of A+ to F.