First Extended Service Corporation

I've had 3 calls and spent at least 2 hours on the phone (much of it on hold) and even had a conference call with the Ford service rep. After threatening to sue them I eventually got transferred to a "specialist" named Elisha but she could not or perhaps would not even give me an address to make a demand that they cover the repair. She also said there was an appeal process but could not tell me what that appeal process was. She said she'd have to review the case with a supervisor to see whether they could tell me the appeal process. Talk about a run-around.

I went and sat in the showroom and called in and spoke to a 3rd rep who saw that I had called before and read what I had been told and then explained that the problem was how the service advisor worded it made it sound like the remote was killing batteries and that isn't a covered issue. I said it was killing the batteries because it was defective and had developed a short. That was different and would be covered. The service advisor called again and spoke to someone else and they were getting him an authorization and put him on hold which eventually got him him disconnected. He called back a 3rd time and explained the problem carefully stating that an internal short in the remote was causing the batteries to die.

After another 10 minute hold while they researched the issue someone came back and again denied the claim, stating that since the problem wasn't caused by the car, the remote itself isn't covered. The warranty specifically states "All power motors and solenoids related to the electrical operations of antennas, DOOR LOCKS, power headlight motors, seat motors, mirrors, convertible tops, power trunks releases. The driver's door is the only door that can be opened with a key and then you must manually hit the electric lock button to open other doors.

This company got over $1200 for this warranty which in reality covers nothing. I have a $100 deductible and the cost of replacement for the key fob is $255 including programming. The people at this company have no understanding of how a vehicle works and will find a way to deny every claim regardless of coverage. DO NOT EVER BUY A CONTRACT FROM THESE PEOPLE. Dealer forced the contract on us and made a lot of money on a piece of worthless paper. I'd call my attorney if the time and cost involved were worth the effort.

I explained that the service manager stated that motor mounts are not part of the powertrain (which she originally agreed with). She began talking over me, and when I asked her not to talk over me, she began to yell at me. Then she hung up on me. This company has many complaints against it. When I checked on them at ConsumerAffairs.com I found that many people have experienced similar, if not worse problems with this company. I plan to call an attorney and a local consumer reporter so that no one else has to go through this. The service advisor is going to send a detailed report to them to explain how the motor mounts are not part of the powertrain. I will see what happens.

I have a phone call to the original car dealership where I purchased the vehicle to see if he can get anywhere with them and to hopefully stop selling their warranty. I actually paid $2,800 dollars to be treated in this manner! I looked up how much an extended warranty should cost and I paid way too much! Stay far away from this company! I am going to tell everyone I know who is thinking about buying a vehicle.

Between 9/14/19 and 11/11/19 car vision dealership and First Extended Corp failed to activate the contract making the customer unable to submit any claims. This was done with the purpose so that if the customer submits the claim it will be rejected because no prior authorization received. On 11/11/19 CarVision dealership acting on behalf of First Extended Corp admitted its wrongful act and activated the contract. It further admitted the reason why it chose to deal with first extended corp is because of the kickbacks it receives from them and that is the reason why the carvision dealership didn't offer any other warranty contracts to chose from.

On 11/13/19 a claim was submitted for the steering rack's failure requiring replacement by the Audi dealership in Mechanicsburg PA. On 11/13/19 First Extended Corp notified the customer that it will be willing to cover only 1350$ price of the 2200 for the steering rack. To which the customer explained, that direct interpretation of the contract states that the part "may be new or like condition."

Further, it is direct language of the contract that the replacement with the new part is a possibility. However, acting maliciously with intent to deprive the customer of his contractual benefit, the warranty company failed to honor the contract by choosing to proceed with the junkyard remanufactured replacement. Essentially it stated if your steering rack broke at 22k miles, we gonna get you another one that will serve another 22k miles so it will be of "the like quality"

On 11/16/19 after hearing a complaint from the customer, the warranty company acting in bad faith and with proven malicious intent with extensive screenshots and other evidence only covered the labor costs and refused to cover 1350$ that it previously agreed to after the customer complained about the fact that the new part replacement is directly written in the contract.

Evidence of malicious intent and bad faith:

- Warranty company failed to activate the contract leading the customer to the position that he paid for non-existent services between September and November 2019. This is proven and documented. The warranty company was receiving payments for the contract it had not activated. Selling non-existent service is illegal. It was non-existent because if the customer would have submitted a claim it would have been rejected because the record did not contain information about the customer because it was intentionally not activated.

- Warranty company failed to honor the requirement that whenever the contract states that exercise of the option whether to proceed with a new part or the used part as a replacement - it must act in good faith. The contract states "new part" or "like quality". It is proven that the warranty company never intended to replace it with the new part and it was only a marketing strategy to advertise replacement with "new" parts where in fact evidence shows it never intended to use those new parts.

- Warranty company falsely advertised that the new part replacement was ever a possibility and falsely advertised that possibility where in fact it never intended to replace with the new part, because after hearing the complaint from the customer on 11/15/19 it simply chose to cover only labor costs but not the part itself.

- After hearing the customer's complaint on 11/15/19 the warranty company retaliated against the customer by declining to cover the cost of the part, which it previously told the Audi dealership it will cover in the price of 1350. This is conclusive evidence of breach of contract and malicious business practices on the part of the warranty company.

- During the conversation the company's representative indicated that he has recognized that the customer is in a protected under the civil rights act category. This determination was made on the record and was also considered in deciding to retaliate against the customer because of his immediately audient accent and nation origin.

Given the conclusive evidence of the breach of contract, I am requesting that all of my damages are compensated and the First Extended Corp's license to practice business is temporarily suspended until the office of the Attorney General consumer affairs conducts a full range investigation into the fraudulent and malicious practices defrauding innocent and law abiding customers.