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:01/03/2025

  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.

  Purchased an extended warranty from them when I bought my car a few years ago, a 2015 Mercedes CLS400. There is an oil leak on the engine, and they have denied the claim twice, most recently on 1/3/2025, stating that it was 'seepage' within the manufacturer's specification. The problem is that I have it serviced at ********, and they are saying it needs to be fixed. I doubt that ******** would let a car leave the factory with any kind of oil leak, so the 'factory spec' argument is pure BS. I've tried to escalate it with Veritas, but their customer service agent suggested my only recourse was 'do what you want.' When I was finally able to speak with a supervisor, he refused to send an inspector and would not allow me to speak to anyone else.This was a very expensive warranty, and I was assured it was as good as a factory warranty. But if they won't respect what the dealership - e.g., the factory? - is saying, what good is it? I've spent more than $7k over the past few years on it, and every claim the dealership has submitted has been denied.The bottom line is that it's a fairly high-performance sedan, and even small leaks can lead to big problems. They are effectively telling me that there has to be an engine failure before they would consider approving any claims.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/14/2025

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ********
  On or about 12/30/2024 the vehicle was driven to the chosen repair facility for tires. A claim was initiated on 1/3/2025 recommending resealing the front engine timing cover for an oil leak, which was found on a courtesy multi-point inspection. A proof of failure (POF) video was sent and attached to the claim for review. After review, the leak has been classified as a seep only and denied as no failure. The contract is neither a warranty or insurance, but a mechanical service contract with terms and conditions that must be met. The Contract states in pertinent part, [M]inor loss of fluid or seepage is considered normal and is not considered a mechanical breakdown and is not eligible for coverage, pursuant to Section II(27) of the Contract. There has been a total of two (2) claims written on the Contract, less than ***** miles apart, for a front cover oil leak. Both have been denied for no failure due to seepage only pursuant to Section VI(8)(E) of the Contract.
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/28/2024

  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 took my car to ************* of ************* to evaluate a situation with my car. It turns out that the *** electronic lever needs to be replaced, a part that is covered by the extended warranty, Veritas Global Protection. Veritas denied the claim. I didnt understand why, so I took the car to ***************** for a 2nd evaluation. The claim was denied as well. This time however, I was given the reason for the denial. I called Veritas and they told me that its because of a preexisting condition that I was not aware of. Something that existed before I purchased the car and the warranty. They told me that they would send me a letter of denial. That was in October 2024. I followed up with them a few weeks later because I didnt receive the letter. They told me that it could take upto 30 days. It is now more than 120 days and I have yet to receive the letter of denial from Veritas. I purchased a warranty plan from Veritas Global Protection to protect me from expensive car repairs, but when it came time for veritas to comply with the terms of the warranty policy, they neglected to do so. They left me out to dry and didnt provide the written letter of denial explaining why they denied the claim.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/10/2025

  In response to the BBB complaint ID: ********
  On or about 9/24/2024 the vehicle was driven to the repair facility for the vehicle moving while shifting into park or reverse, and the third brake light being inoperative. The claim was initiated on 9/24/2024 recommending the shifter lever module and the third brake light assembly replacement. Codes U010300 and U142000 for communication and implausible signal for the shifter module were pulled from the system and utilized for the diagnosis. These codes were sent in on 9/24/2024 and attached to the claim for review. As seen in the freeze frame date provided with the codes, the codes were in a stored status and first set at ****** miles. This issue was present prior to the contract effective mileage of ****** miles and has been denied as a pre-existing failure pursuant to Section VI(8)(B) of the Contract. The third brake light assembly is listed as not covered and denied pursuant to Section V(B) of the Contract. The repair facility was contacted on 9/24/2024 and advised of the claim determination to deny.
  The vehicle was driven to another repair facility on 10/15/2024 for a complaint of randomly not coming out of park. The previous claim denial for a pre-existing issue will stand, pursuant to Section VI(8)(B) of the Contract as it is the same complaint and requested repair. The issue was present in the vehicle prior to purchase of the Contract as seen in the freeze frame data provided on the previous claim. The contract is neither a warranty or insurance, but a mechanical service contract with terms and conditions that must be met. Letters of denial were requested originally on 10/16/2024 for both claims. The letters have been sent for approval and are scheduled to be mailed.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/12/2025

  I purchased an extended warranty from ************* of *************. After the visit to ************* of ************* in September, I didnt understand what happened and why the required work was denied. Only after taking the car to ************ that I was made aware of the reason for the denial. After which I contacted your organization and was informed that I would receive a letter of denial, which I didnt receive until I contacted the Better Business Bureau. Still, I received an email message, which states that a certified letter was also sent to me. I have yet to receive such certified correspondence. Your organization is most unprofessional. 

  

  Business Response

  Date: 01/22/2025

  Additional response to the BBB complaint ID: ********
  On or about 9/24/2024 the vehicle was driven to the repair facility for the vehicle moving while shifting into park or reverse, and the third brake light being inoperative. The claim was initiated on 9/24/2024 recommending the shifter lever module and the third brake light assembly replacement. Codes U010300 and U142000 for communication and implausible signal for the shifter module were pulled from the system and utilized for the diagnosis. These codes were sent in on 9/24/2024 and attached to the claim for review. As seen in the freeze frame date provided with the codes, the codes were in a stored status and first set at ****** miles. This issue was present prior to the contract effective mileage of ****** miles and has been denied as a pre-existing failure pursuant to Section VI(8)(B) of the Contract. The third brake light assembly is listed as not covered and denied pursuant to Section V(B) of the Contract. The repair facility was contacted on 9/24/2024 and advised of the claim determination to deny.
  The vehicle was driven to another repair facility on 10/15/2024 for a complaint of randomly not coming out of park. The previous claim denial for a pre-existing issue will stand, pursuant to Section VI(8)(B)of the Contract as it is the same complaint and requested repair. The issue was present in the vehicle prior to purchase of the Contract as seen in the freeze frame data provided on the previous claim. The contract is neither a warranty or insurance, but a mechanical service contract with terms and conditions that must be met. Letters of denial were requested originally on 10/16/2024 for both claims. The letters have been sent for approval and are scheduled to be mailed.The LOD process includes delivery through email and certified mail both. The certified letter has had one (1) attempted delivery, with a notice left at the residence due to no authorized recipient available.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/22/2025

  I did not receive any notification of any attempted delivery of the letter of denial. I receive advanced notice of all **** mail items via email prior to delivery. However, I noticed in yesterdays email (1/21/2025) that 2 certified letters are due to arrive in the near future from your organization. 
  

  I stand by my previous statement, that if I hadnt filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, I wouldnt have received the email message with the denial information, nor would I have received the pending arrival the certified denial letters. 
  

  Ultimately, I purchased an extended warranty policy via ************* of Coconut Creek in good faith. I paid over $5,000 for the policy in good faith. I was surprised that within a number months of payments that I hadnt received any materials from your organization confirming the purchase and providing detailed coverage information. I called your organization and spoke with a representative.  I complained about the lack of communication/correspondence and she emailed some information to me. That should have been a clue for to terminate the contract and sign up with car ******* or endurance, but I had faith and continued on with the payments and here am today, left high and dry  

   

   

   

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/05/2024

  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 purchased 2 warranties from Veritas Global Protection for my ***** Silverado that was purchased in November 2024. The warranties totaled $3,717.00. I took my truck to a dealer that I use regularly to have some work done. They found over $1,200.00 in work that needed to be completed. When the warranty company was contacted they only wanted to pay $617.00. I have also called the dealer I purchased the truck from & am getting no where with either place. I would just like to have both warranties cancelled & my money returned. I have emailed & mailed cancellation notices. Contract #VGW300127499 Contract #VAO293176

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/17/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ********
  On or about 11/24/2024, the Claimant drove their vehicle to the repair facility for a fluid leak. The repair facility found the water pump and transmission cooler lines leaking on the initial inspection. The claim was called in on 11/25/2024, requesting a new water pump and cooler lines.
  After adjudication, the determination was made to approve the water pump, and deny the cooler lines as non-covered items in the Claimants Powertrain Enhanced Contract. The Powertrain Enhanced Contract requires the items to be listed for coverage. Components not listed are not covered. The repair facility was contacted on 11/27/2024 with a message being left for a callback to discuss the claim determination. The repair facility called back on 12/2/2024 to go over the claim determination, being advised of the denied cooler lines and the approved water pump with the adjudicated authorized total.
  A nationally recognized labor guide, ALLDATA, was utilized to adjudicate the labor times. The Contract allows for the use of new, used,refurbished, or replacement parts of like kind or quality. The claim adjudication is pursuant Sections I(6), II(3) and (10) of the Contract. The pricing given would be a credit towards the part the repair facility would provide with the customer responsible for the balance, or the part can be shipped by us with no additional cost to the customer.
  The Contract can be cancelled pursuant to Section VIII(1) of the Contract. An email requesting cancellation information can also be sent to ********************************************************* There has been no cancellation request information received by us, as of 12/17/2024.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/20/2024

  we are trying to work with ***** Lemans auto sales in *********, ******** to help settle this matter they sold me this extended warranty that Is going nowhere nor no help to me nor the truck but took through $3,700 of my money their rep ****** again their rep ****** every time I called they did not have my name phone number or address . nor my contract number, which for the extended warranty is powertrain VGW300127499 & My warranty contract number for my tires and rims is VA0293176 We sent them request to cancel both of them on the 19th and I have the paper trail.  At this time I just want my $3,700 back & be done with this matter!  

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/30/2024

  Additional response to BBB complaint ID: ********
  Although the dealer sells our contracts, we are a separate company with no control over the marketing or sales processes utilized. On 12/16/2024,we received a cancel request, upon processing, the request was not notarized and found to be missing the cancel effective date and mileage. Pursuant to Section VIII(1) of the Contract, the cancellation letter must have Your signature, the reason for cancellation, the date of cancellation, and the cancellation mileage. The letter must be signed by a licensed notary public. Letters without all of the required information will be rejected. A voice mail was left on 12/23/2024 advising of the missing information, requesting a resubmitted letter with the required information included. Once a cancellation letter providing all required information is received, the cancellation process can move forward.  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/02/2024

  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.

  Services purchase date: 7/6/21 Price: $2,599.00 Purchased: Exclusionary Vehicle extended warranty. I purchased an extended warranty for my used vehicle when I purchased it on 7/6/21. The contract was for 8 years (84 months) or ******* miles from the time I purchased the vehicle. My transmission has stopped working. I filed my claim on 11/18/21 and produced all documentation of maintenance that was asked of me by Veritas. My claim was denied because the manufacturer performed a recommended service on my vehicle (I drive a ********* and took my vehicle to *********). Veritas had verbally denied my claimed on 11/25/21. Veritas has not given me anything in writing as to why I am being denied after I have requested it. I also reached out ************** and received the maintenance schedule for my vehicle and a ************** Technician bulletin recommending the very service that my claim is being denied for.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/16/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ********
  On or about 11/15/2024, the Claimant drove the Vehicle to the repair facility Anthem for a transmission shudder around 60mph. No relevant codes were found in the vehicle electronic control module (ECU). The transmission pan was removed for inspection, with material found on the magnet inside of the pan. The repair facility initiated the claim on 11/15/2024 requesting to replace the transmission assembly complete. The repair facility supplied a maintenance record for a previously performed transmission flush service at this time.
  A third-party inspection was requested and performed on 11/18/2024. The inspection generated report notes the shudder was felt around 60mph on a test drive with material visible in the fluid. Pictures provided in the report verify material on the magnet in the transmission oil pan. The report also notes that oversized tires have been installed on the vehicle. No other failures were seen or demonstrated, with no further diagnosis performed. A customer statement was collected on 11/18/2024, verifying a hesitation when shifting and a rumble felt when driving. Maintenance records were requested from the customer at this time and attached to the claim on 11/19/2024.
  During adjudication, relevant technical service bulletins (TSBs) had been found. TSB 04-06-01-029K references unscheduled services and to not utilize aftermarket chemicals or power flush machines. The supplied transmission flush maintenance record shows a ************ transmission service kit, part number K6600 had been utilized. TSB 20-NA-142 references the symptoms and a picture of the material found in the fluid and the magnet in the oil pan. This bulletin states to replace the torque converter and transmission fluid filter only, not the complete transmission.  The claim has been denied for incorrect maintenance with improper fluid pursuant to Sections II(10),(11), V(12) and (14). 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/24/2024

  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.

  About 5 months ago, our Challenger Hellcat wouldnt turn over, after functioning fine for the first 4 months, and we had it towed to a *****/***** dealer to have it repaired. Before the electrical system died, it provided a code, which the dealers service supervisor, *****, provided to Veritas. For 2 weeks my car was at the dealer, who was trying to work with the adjuster to get the claim approval. The car could not be started without the defective part being repaired and the adjuster would not authorize the replacement of the part until the dealers repair staff started the car to allow evaluation. However, the car couldnt be started until that part was repaced.... Do you see the problem ? Veritas also said they were going to send an adjuster out to take a looking which never happened. I have supporting video, which was provided to Veritas, proving the car wouldn't starting supporting paperwork of the tests run on the ******* from the dealer's repair supervisor, *****.For 4 1/2 months I have been pursuing the reimbursement of my claim, that I submitted after paying the $2,000 bill to get my repaired Hellcat back. Every time I called Veritas, I was treated with a polite I will pass on your concerns & the adjuster will call you back." which never happened. So I have finally given up. I am in the process of canceling the extended warrenty, however, if I could be reimbursed for my claim, I would greatly appreciate it. Also I wish to file a report, to hopefully prevent this from happening to someone else. There is no way to upload the supporting documents and video from the repair facility due to the limited size requirement. If you providea direct email address, I can forward the supporting documents for my claim/complaint.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/09/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ********
  On or about 5/28/2024, the Claimant towed the vehicle to their repair facility for a no start condition. The repair facility initiated the claim on 5/29/2024 with a request for a fuel pump assembly. The repair facility was advised proof of failure (POF) was required to provide failure verification.The repair facility sent a code scan showing P0463, a stored fuel level sender code,and a video of the car not starting. On 6/4/2024, management had requested a manual fuel pressure reading to verify the fuel pump not operating correctly.With 2 videos sent in regarding POF, the first video of the vehicle cranking shows tank of fuel, the second shows an empty tank. The code is only for the fuel level sender, and not the entire pump, advising the repair facility a manual fuel pressure test must be performed to determine pump failure. With the repair facility unwilling to perform the requested test, the claim was denied on 6/6/2024 for no verified failure pursuant to Section V(23) of the Contract.
  The Claimant paid for the repair on their own and has requested reimbursement for said repair. With the repair not authorized, a reimbursement would not be available. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/21/2024

  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.

  On 11/9/24 my 2016 Acura TLX had a dash warning light appear. The warning light stated CHECK *** SYSTEM. My wife drives the vehicle and told me to check it out when she got home from work. I got into the car and turned it on and saw the message on the center console dash display. Upon further investigation, ***** states this is the vehicle stability control system, hence ***. I told my wife I would contact the dealer in the morning and schedule a service as it shouldnt be a big issue. On 11/11/24 we took the vehicle in for inspection. A couple days later ***** claimed the vehicle needed a new transmission. This was very surprising as we have followed all the recommended services for oil, transmission etc. The vehicle is also very low mileage at just ****** miles. I recalled having purchased a warranty service contract a few years back when I re-financed the vehicle so I called to find out what coverage I had. They gave me the contact information for Veritas and the claim was filed by *****. Veritas sent an adjuster out to look at the vehicle. As of today, 11/21/24, the claim has been denied because we drove the vehicle after the warning light appeared on the dash and we did not take the vehicle to the repair facility immediately. We drove the vehicle less than 100 miles and the vehicle did not have any indication that there was anything wrong with it other than the *** light for the stability control was illuminated. Upon further review with multiple phone calls with Veritas management the claim is being denied due to driving the vehicle after the warning light appeared on the dash. ***** is claiming it doesnt matter if the vehicle was driven 1 mile or ****** miles with the light on, it would still need a new transmission. Technician stated that the code that is being read in the *** states hydraulic control unit valve body has failed. Veritas claims that caused the entire transmission to fail by driving with that part going out. ***** saysit is not the case

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/03/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ********
  The Contract is neither a warranty or insurance, but a mechanical service contract with Terms and Conditions that must be met. On or about 11/11/2024, the customer drove his vehicle to his chosen repair facility with multiple warning lights displayed on the dash. Multiple transmission codes were found during the initial inspection. The repair facility initiated the claim on 11/12/2024 requesting to replace the transmission.
  A third-party inspection was requested and performed on 11/14/2024. The inspection generated report verifies the instrument cluster displaying a message for the transmission and traction control, along with a hard shift experienced during the test drive. The report notes a fluid sample shows evidence of metal contamination. A customer statement collected on 11/13/2024, notes three (3) different codes were displayed, with the vehicle being taken to the repair facility a couple of days and approximately 100 miles later. This claim has been denied for continued operation of an impaired vehicle pursuant to Sections III(1) and V(6) of the Contract.
  The claim was adjudicated under the Terms and Conditions of the Contract listed below:
  SECTION III. WHAT TO DO IN THE EVENT OF A FAILURE OR BREAKDOWN
  1. Prevent Further Damage- Immediately take action to prevent further damage to Your Vehicle. The operator of Your Vehicle is responsible for observing Vehicle warning lights, gauges, and sensory items that indicate a potential Breakdown. Upon this observation, You must immediately arrange for the Vehicle to be diagnosed, and cease operating the Vehicle. Failure to properly take this action or the continued operation of Your Vehicle may result in the denial of claims.
  
  SECTION V.EXCLUSIONS WHAT IS NOT COVERED
  6. Breakdowns where there has been continued operation of an impaired Vehicle.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/04/2024

  The vehicle transmission has been further evaluated by a Honda technician. The transmission failure codes that are read by the OBD2 data system indicate that the Solenoid for the transmissions park position have failed and need to be replaced. Essentially the transmission is mechanically fine to drive but if you place the vehicle in park then there is a chance that the vehicle may not go into park and the vehicle could move. Driving the vehicle created no further damage to the transmission, therefore, voiding any reason to deny the claim for driving the vehicle. Upon further investigation, the part that needs to be replaced is no longer a part that can be ordered from the manufacturer. ***** is replacing the transmission from a used car for $3900. That is the refund I am seeking. Driving the vehicle made no change to the outcome of the transmission failure. This is proven by the codes in the OBD2 system and by the technician at ***** evaluating the problem and root cause of the codes. Again the problem is with the park feature of the transmission, not the actual function of the transmission while driving the vehicle.  Your policy states that driving the vehicle may cause denial. It does not state it will cause denial. This claim should not be denied. 

  

  Business Response

  Date: 12/13/2024

  Additional response for BBB complaint ID: ********
  The Claimant drove the vehicle into his repair facility with multiple warning lights displayed on the dash. A third-party inspection report provided pictures of the instrument cluster message stating to check the transmission and traction control light on the dash. The customer statement notes the vehicle was driven multiple days and approximately 100 miles after these warnings presented. Section III(1) of the Contract reads in part: Immediately take action to prevent further damage to Your Vehicle. The operator of Your Vehicle is responsible for observing Vehicle warning lights,gauges, and sensory items that indicate a potential Breakdown. Upon this observation, You must immediately arrange for the Vehicle to be diagnosed, and cease operating the Vehicle. The Claim has been denied pursuant to Sections III(1) and V(6) of the Contract.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/18/2024

  As stated, the problem with the transmission is with the parking sensor/solenoid. Driving the vehicle created no further issues per the statement of the technician at *****. The reason the transmission needs a complete replacement is because the company that supplies the transmission does not make or supply the parking solenoid replacement part any longer.  I understand that the company is using every tactic possible in their policy to avoid covering the cost of a transmission. Refund my full amount if thats how you want to handle this problem as the warranty isnt worth the paper its written on. 
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/16/2024

  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.

  I have a starter kit that needs to be approved by the warranty company. They are not communicating like they should be. Hours of business are not honored. When you call they do not answer or help out any customer service or technical questions.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/10/2024

  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 recently took my car to the dealership since it was making a noise in the front end of my car. The service manager did confirm there was a noise and they would conduct an inspection and provide the details to Veritas. Well, the claim was made but it was "canceled" since my front end shocks were not leaking fluid and stated there is no damage and it did not affect the performance of my 2019 Mercedes Benz E300. They needed more "evidence" in order to get my car repaired (this is covered in the PREMIER PLAN). The head mechanic and service manager even stated to the rep at Veritas they could not "record" the sound of the shocks and requested a Veritas rep to come to the dealership and inspect it for themselves. Veritas declined to send someone out to verify the issue! I called and complained since other warranty companies send people out to verify. I paid over $4.000 for the PREMIER PACKAGE and this is how they take care of their customers? Even the Mercedes Benz service manager was shocked. Paying this amount and waiting for my car to show some type of leakage before they cover parts? Just imagine if the shocks went out and I was driving, the extra damage that could cause the car! I called customer service and they stated they could not guarantee other parts if the shocks went out and affected the other parts. I bought the warranty to cover my investment and there warranty companies want to nickel and dime their customers? Now I know why all the insurance companies make the big $$$ since they will make up any excuse in order NOT to repair the car. I am planning to cancel this warranty and go to a better comany who care about their customers and protect their investments. Very disappointed and I definitely will NOT RECOMMEND this company.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/17/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: ********
  
  On or about 1 July 2024, the vehicle was driven to the repair facility for a noise coming from the front end over bumps. The repair facility started the claim recommending a right front strut due to noise. On 3 July 2024, the repair facility sent a proof of failure (POF) video, taken from the inside of the vehicle, which does not show any type of failure to the front strut. The repair facility was contacted and advised the POF sent in was not sufficient. A jounce test video showing the strut had excessive movement, or a picture showing an excessive oil leak would be needed. On 5 July 2024, the claim was denied pursuant to Section VI(8)(D) of the Contract for no failure, as noise alone is not considered a failure to the contract. This is not a warranty or insurance, but a mechanical service contract, with terms and conditions the must be followed.
  
  The claim was adjudicated under the Terms and Conditions of the Contract listed below:
  
  I. KEY TERMS
  
  “Failure” means the failure of a covered part under normal service due to defects in material or workmanship. A covered part has failed when it can no longer perform the function for which it was designed solely because of its condition and not because of the action or inaction of any noncovered parts.
  
  VI. AGREEMENT LIMITATIONS
  
  8. NON-COVERED CONDITIONS
  
  D. FOR ANY REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY COVERED PART IF A BREAKDOWN HAS NOT OCCURRED OR IF THE WEAR ON THAT PART HAS NOT EXCEEDED THE FIELD TOLERANCES ALLOWED BY THE MANUFACTURER UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/10/2024

  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.

  Veritas global protection Warranty company don't actually warranty anything. I have had several instances that they would not cover. The dealership I take my vehicle to say it should all have been covered under my warranty.. the dealership I use is Dwayne lane's in Everett WA.. they take you money and give no service. My vehicle is there now on 07/02/24. I believe this is a fraud company there just to take your money. I have a powertrain enhanced warranty that doesn't cover the powertrain control module. I says powertrain right in the name of the part that should be covered.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/17/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID:********
  On or about 27 June 2024, the vehicle was driven to the repair facility for a charging issue. The claimant has previously replaced the battery and the alternator, while still experiencing charging issues. The repair facility called the claim in on 1 July 2024 requesting replacement of the Powertrain Control Module (PCM) due to an internally failed K20 circuit. The repair facility was advised on the initial call of the denial due to the claimant’s Powertrain Enhanced level contract, stating the PCM is not listed for coverage. This is not a warranty, but a mechanical service contract, with terms and conditions that must be followed.
  See attachment showing Contract coverage breakdown.
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/03/2024

  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 purchased an extended warranty with this company when I purchased a used vehicle. I honored the terms of my contract. When the vehicle began to have problems, I ensured that it was taken, actually towed at cost to myself to an ASE certified automotive mechanic. He diagnosed the vehicle as needing a new transmission. An independent vehicle inspector, who works for OneGuard, came to the automotive dealership, as an agent of the warranty company to determine if the mechanic's diagnosis was accurate. The warranty company will not honor their contract agreement and denies the claim based on the information from this inspector. There is no transparency at all. I asked the warranty company for the list of diagnostic requirements that the mechanic is required to provide and they refuse to share that with me. I am told that it is not to be shared with a client (myself). However, it was also not shared with the mechanic. I do not understand how they can justify not honoring the warranty if no one is allowed to know what criteria has to be met. The ASE certified auto mechanic has completed all the requirements to justify the required and expected repairs. I feel that the warranty company is just trying to avoid honoring the contract.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/16/2024

  In response to BBB complaint ID: 21937543
  On or about 28 June 2024, the vehicle was towed to the repair facility for shifting issues. During a test drive, the repair facility found a harsh 3-4 upshift and a failure to go into gear at times. The claim was called in on 1 July 2024, with a request to replace the transmission.
  A third-party inspection was requested and performed on or about 2 July 2024. The inspection generated report notes the fluid level to be full and dark in color, with no codes found in the system. During the test drive, a hard upshift and down shift was felt along with a judder under light acceleration. The repair facility was contacted on 3 July 2024 with a request to obtain additional diagnostic information relating to a direct point of failure, or a test plan flow chart pointing to a complete replacement, rather than a component repair.
  After a management review of the claim and related information on 8 July 2024, the determination has been overturned. The repair facility was contacted on 9 July 2024 with the approval and authorized total. The claim and complaint have been satisfied.