ComplaintsforServiceguard Systems, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  12/12/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  After trying to make a claim with my purchased warranty. I was denied over what seems to be a misinterpretation or misguided decision. A retaining prop shaft bolt on my atv has broken and needs to be fixed. The service contract covers all retainers. See pictures. I was denied because they consider this as hardware which they do not cover. Considering that this specific part has the word retainer in it I was shocked to hear they would not cover it. I think the decision on their behalf was wrong and need to fill be fixed

  Customer response

  12/23/2022

  [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 have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
  Please reach out via email and I can sign documents and send back any account information if needed.
  Regards,
  
  ****** *****
  
  
  

  Business response

  02/03/2023

  December 23, 2022
  Via Upload through BBB Website
  Better Business Bureau
  c/o *** ****** *******
  200 Treeworth Blvd.
  Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147
  RE: ServiceGuard Systems, Inc. – Mr. ****** *****
  Complaint ID ********

  
  Dear Mr. *******:

  
  This letter is in response to the Better Business Bureau's ("BBB") complaint received
  from Mr. ****** ***** ("Mr. *****") against ServiceGuard Systems, Inc. (“SSI”), which has
  been assigned Complaint ID ********.

  
  The complaint has been referred to SSI’s Legal Department and after review of the
  communications and file, below are the relevant facts.

  
  On or about October 10, 2020, Mr. ***** purchased an Xtremegard Service Contract,
  Contract No. ******** (the “Service Contract”), for his Can-Am Outlander All-Terrain Vehicle
  (the “ATV”). The Service Contract contained comprehensive coverage, which specified that
  certain components of the ATV are covered by the Service Contract, except for the items listed
  on the “What is Not Covered” section (located on pages 7 – 9 of the Service Contract, and
  attached hereto for reference). In the “What is Not Covered” section, and relevant to the claim
  asserted by Mr. *****, is that the following are specifically excluded from coverage:
  1) “. . . parts including, but not limited to, . . . washers, nuts, bolts, studs, fasteners, and
  fittings.” (Service Contract at page 8, paragraph 12)
  2) “. . . Failure caused by the loosening of any component.” (Service Contract at page 7,
  paragraph 7)
  On or around December 8, 2022, Atlantic City Cycle Center (the “Dealership”) contacted
  SSI to report a claim under Mr. *****’s Service Contract (the “Claim”). The Dealership
  explained to SSI that a bolt securing the transmission had come loose on Mr. *****’s ATV and
  caused damage to the driveshaft. After conversation with the Dealership, reviewing the Claim
  and the applicable Service Contract language, SSI denied the Claim because of the exclusions to
  coverage listed above.

  
  Mr. ***** subsequently inquired about a certain brochure he found that he claimed
  indicated that “retainers” were to be covered under the Service Contract. As such, he claimed
  that the bolt that came loose on his ATV was known as a retaining bolt and, thus, should be
  covered. SSI informed Mr. ***** that the literature he referred to was not applicable to the
  specific Service Contract (comprehensive coverage) he purchased and that the terms of his
  specific Service Contract govern his Claim. As such, Mr. ***** was made aware that there was
  no coverage of retainers in his contract; bolts were not covered; and that failures and damage
  caused by components coming loose were not covered under his specific Service Contract.
  With this said, given the nature of SSI’s business and its desire to leave customers with a
  positive experience, SSI is willing to offer Mr. ***** a refund of the full purchase price of his
  Service Contract in the amount of $914.00 to be paid directly to Mr. ***** or his lienholder if
  applicable, which will result in SSI flat canceling Mr. *****’s contract. If Mr. *****s accepts
  this offer, SSI will require Mr. ***** to sign a general release.

  
  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SSI sincerely
  hopes that this letter and the offer presented fully and completely satisfies Mr. *****’s

  
  Complaint.
  Sincerely yours,
  /s/ ****** ** *****
  ****** ** *****, Esq.
  Enclosure

• Initial Complaint

  02/17/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  I sold my 4 wheeler and sent Serviceguard a check and signed letter to transfer the warranty to the person I sold it to. ServiceGuard contacted me and said they will not cash the check since they could not read the persons information. They asked me to email the persons information to: [email protected] I never emailed Serviceguard the clarifying information they needed as they requested prior to cashing my check. I reached out to the person who bought my 4 wheeler and informed them I need the information in order to transfer the warranty. The person said they no longer want the warranty. I contacted serviceguard 17 February 21 and informed them the person did not want the warranty and why they cashed the check/asked for a refund. The person who answered said “well we just guessed at the name.” I asked to speak to the manager and he was not helpful at all. When I requested another person above him to resolve the issue he said “I am the operational manager and no one is above me that you can talk to.” When explaining the situation he did not care but put the blame on me saying “it has been 5 weeks since you sent the request in and we did what the request said and we have a 30 day deadline to transfer.” He was blaming me and asking why I waited 5 weeks to get back to them. I asked the manager why would Serviceguard contacted me saying they would not cash the check until I emailed the information of the person to transfer to since they could not read it and then cash the check anyway? The manager had no empathy and said well you requested in a letter for us to transfer and that’s what we did we only have 30 days and we did what you requested. The manager ignored my statements and I was never informed on the 30 day policy. This company cashed my check after saying they would not. The manager was rude to blame me for waiting over 5 weeks to get back to them. I have significant medical issues/100% disabled/transferring out of the military.

  Business response

  02/24/2022

  Dear *** *******-Please see the attached formal response letter to the BBB Complaint ID ********, with attachments being submitted herewith. Thank you for your time. ******

  Business response

  02/25/2022

  Dear *** *******:

  This letter is in response to the Better Business Bureau's ("BBB") complaint received
  from Ms. ******* ***** ("Ms. *****") against ServiceGuard Systems, Inc. (“SSI”), which has
  been assigned Complaint I.D. ********.

  The complaint has been referred to SSI’s Legal Department and after review of the
  relevant communications and file, below are the relevant facts.

  On or about January 18, 2020, Ms. ***** purchased an ********** Service Contract,
  Contract No. ********, for her ***** ********* All-Terrain Vehicle (the “ATV”).
  According to the terms of the Service Contract, Ms. ***** was permitted to transfer the Service
  Contract to someone she sold or otherwise transferred the ATV to while the Service Contract
  was still in force. (See Contract at p. 14 (“Transfer of Your Contract”), attached hereto). To
  consummate a transfer, however, SSI must receive the original Service Contract book and
  application, the name and address of the new owner, date of sale to the new owner, and a $50.00
  Transfer Fee made payable to SSI within 30 days of the change of ownership. (Id.). Ms. *****
  received a copy of her Service Contract booklet, which contains these material terms regarding
  transferring her Service Contract.

  In or around January, 2022, Ms. ***** sold, assigned and/or transferred the ATV to Mr.
  Timothy ****. In fact, Mr. **** took possession of the ATV on January 10, 2022. (See
  executed agreement between Ms. ***** and Mr. **** attached hereto). Pursuant to the
  agreement between Ms. ***** and Mr. ****, the parties agreed that Ms. ***** would “transfer
  the remaining ********** warranty contract” to Mr. **** and that Ms. ***** was paying the
  $50.00 transfer fee by a personal check made payable to SSI. (Id.).

  Ms. ***** sent SSI the agreement she executed with Mr. **** and the $50.00 check to
  SSI in order to effectuate the transfer. When SSI received the check and the contract between
  Ms. ***** and Mr. ****, the representative had questions to ensure that the proper person was
  being transferred the Service Contract as Mr. ****'s name was not clearly legible. When the 
  SSI representative reached out to Ms. *****, she explained that she would send an e-mail with
  the required information so that the transfer could occur. When she failed to do so, but keeping
  in mind Ms. *****'s intentions to transfer the Service Contract to Mr. **** and the thirty (30)
  day clause to do so, SSI effectuated the transfer of the Service Contract from Ms. ***** to Mr.
  ****.

  Unfortunately, some miscommunication occurred and Ms. ***** was unhappy that SSI
  cashed her $50.00 check and effectuated the transfer of the Service Contract to Mr. *****. SSI
  regrets any such miscommunication and truly believed it was doing what the customer, Ms.
  *****, wanted to have done with the Service Contract.

  Given the nature of the situation and the request for a $50.00 refund to resolve this issue
  (as stated in her Complaint), SSI agrees to refund the $50.00 transfer fee to Ms. *****. SSI
  certainly appreciates the ability to resolve this matter amicably by refunding Ms. ***** the
  $50.00. With that said, SSI needs to be sure that it has the proper address for Ms. ***** so that
  the refund can be sent to her most current address. Upon receipt of that information, SSI will
  issue a refund in the amount of $50.00 to Ms. ***** forthwith.

  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SSI sincerely
  hopes that this letter and the subsequent payment discussed herein completely resolves Ms.
  *****’s Complaint.

  Sincerely yours,
  
  ****** ** *****, Esq. 

  Customer response

  02/25/2022

  [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 have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
  As requested my address is: 

  *** ******** ** ********* ***  ******* ** *****
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *****
  
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  11/11/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  warranty "stated that no coverage will be provided in the event there is an indication that the watercraft has been altered in any way to cause it to perform outside of the watercraft manufacturer's specifications." This is the wording on the contract. They did not pay for the repairs on my motor because the said I altered it. It was altered but it still performs within the watercrafts manufacturers specs. Actually way below the maximum specs in the motors owners manual. This work should be paid for by the warranty. This is not worth a shit and you know that and refuse to pay for the repairs. This should be paid for immediately.

  Business response

  12/09/2021

  Dear Mr. *******:

  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. **** ********* complaint filed with the
  Better Business Bureau. As you are probably aware, ******** Business Bureau complaints are
  generally reviewed and responded to by the General Counsel's Office of **** ***********, Inc.

  Please note that Mr. **** ******* is the not the contract holder; rather the XtremeGard
  Marine Service Contract (No. ********) in this case was transferred to ****** ******* on or
  about October 30, 2020 (as the original contract was in the name of another person). For the
  transfer, ****** ******* paid $50.00 for the XtremeGard Marine service contract.

  With that said, I have had the opportunity to review the applicable XtremeGard Marine
  service contract, claim request information, and have discussed Mr. ********* complaint with
  *** *******, our Senior Claims Manager. The dealership for this contract is Bradford Marine
  and ServiceGuard Systems, Inc. is the administrator for the XtremeGard Marine service contract.

  Ms. ******* submitted a claim for repairs with respect to the motor on a 2017 Tracer pt 190
  watercraft. ServiceGuard Systems, Inc., pursuant to its normal process, reviewed the requested
  repairs, the service contract, the maintenance records for the boat and communicated with the
  Obligor for the service contract.

  The XtremeGard Marine service contract at issue provides as follows:

  3. PURCHASER’S RESPONSIBILITY: TO MAINTAIN COVERAGE
  UNDER THIS ESC, YOU MUST FOLLOW THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
  OF THE MANUFACTURER OF YOUR WATERCRAFT AND OF THIS
  ESC. MAINTEANCE SERVICE MAY BE PERFORMED BY ANY
  QUALIFIED SERVICE OUTLET. PROOF OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE
  MAY BE REQUIRED BY SSI TO HAVE CLAIMS AUTHORIZED.
  **********
  13. VOIDING OF ESC: This ESC shall be void if the WATERCRAFT is abused
  or used in any unintended manner or shows indications that it has been altered in any way
  to cause it to perform outside of the manufacturer specifications. The ESC is likewise
  void if the WATERCRAFT shows indications that reasonable or necessary maintenance
  as outlined in the owner’s manual and maintenance and service manual was not
  performed at the time and in the manner specified in such manuals.

  There was only one maintenance record submitted with respect to the watercraft. From
  the documents provided, it appeared that the watercraft had only been serviced one (1) time in
  four years. In addition, the manufacturer (Tracker) specifications (2017 Tracker Rigging
  Specifications for pt 190) for the watercraft were reviewed. It was determined that the watercraft
  had been altered from the manufacturer specifications. As a result, the determination was made
  that the engine failure was due to the alteration from manufacturer specifications, causing
  excessive RPMs on a poorly maintained motor.

  Based on these facts, documentation, contract language and research into the watercraft’s
  manufacturer specifications, ****** ********* claim was denied and the reason for the denial
  was explained.

  After the denial, Mr. ******* posted a negative comment on the BBB’s website. On or
  about November 11, 2021, ServiceGuard Systems, Inc. responded to the comment. Its response
  noted again that coverage was not provided because the specifical language contained in the
  service contract regarding alteration of the watercraft outside of the watercraft’s manufacturer
  specifications.

  In addition, based on the service contract language, a cancellation letter was sent to
  Ahsley *******. This letter explained that the XtremeGard Marine service contract was
  canceled/voided due to the contractual language.

  Subsequent thereto, BBB forwarded me the complaint in this matter. After receiving the
  complaint referenced herein from Mr. *******, we further investigated this matter. We again
  affirm our decision to deny the claim submitted for this watercraft. Although Mr. *******
  admits that the watercraft was altered (see the complaint), he claims that the watercraft still
  performs within the watercraft’s manufacturer’s specifications. Neither Mr. ******* nor
  ****** *******-the contract holder, has not submitted any documentation of maintenance
  records or that the alterations made by the *******s still allowed the watercraft to perform in
  accordance with Tracker specifications for this particular watercraft.

  The relevant documentation involved in this matter and the reasons for ServiceGuard
  Systems, Inc.’s denial of the claim are being submitted herewith. 

  Based upon the above, I sincerely hope that Mr. ******* (and ****** *******) can
  understand the position of ServiceGuard Systems, Inc., the administrator for the service contract
  at issue. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please feel free to contact
  me.

  Sincerely yours,

  ****** ** *****

  Business response

  12/09/2021

  Dear Mr. *******:

  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. **** ********* complaint filed with the
  Better Business Bureau. As you are probably aware, ******** Business Bureau complaints are
  generally reviewed and responded to by the General Counsel's Office of **** ***********, Inc.

  Please note that Mr. **** ******* is the not the contract holder; rather the XtremeGard
  Marine Service Contract (No. ********) in this case was transferred to ****** ******* on or
  about October 30, 2020 (as the original contract was in the name of another person). For the
  transfer, ****** ******* paid $50.00 for the XtremeGard Marine service contract.

  With that said, I have had the opportunity to review the applicable XtremeGard Marine
  service contract, claim request information, and have discussed Mr. ********* complaint with
  *** *******, our Senior Claims Manager. The dealership for this contract is Bradford Marine
  and ServiceGuard Systems, Inc. is the administrator for the XtremeGard Marine service contract.

  Ms. ******* submitted a claim for repairs with respect to the motor on a 2017 Tracer pt 190
  watercraft. ServiceGuard Systems, Inc., pursuant to its normal process, reviewed the requested
  repairs, the service contract, the maintenance records for the boat and communicated with the
  Obligor for the service contract.

  The XtremeGard Marine service contract at issue provides as follows:

  3. PURCHASER’S RESPONSIBILITY: TO MAINTAIN COVERAGE
  UNDER THIS ESC, YOU MUST FOLLOW THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
  OF THE MANUFACTURER OF YOUR WATERCRAFT AND OF THIS
  ESC. MAINTEANCE SERVICE MAY BE PERFORMED BY ANY
  QUALIFIED SERVICE OUTLET. PROOF OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE
  MAY BE REQUIRED BY SSI TO HAVE CLAIMS AUTHORIZED.
  **********
  13. VOIDING OF ESC: This ESC shall be void if the WATERCRAFT is abused
  or used in any unintended manner or shows indications that it has been altered in any way
  to cause it to perform outside of the manufacturer specifications. The ESC is likewise
  void if the WATERCRAFT shows indications that reasonable or necessary maintenance
  as outlined in the owner’s manual and maintenance and service manual was not
  performed at the time and in the manner specified in such manuals.

  There was only one maintenance record submitted with respect to the watercraft. From
  the documents provided, it appeared that the watercraft had only been serviced one (1) time in
  four years. In addition, the manufacturer (Tracker) specifications (2017 Tracker Rigging
  Specifications for pt 190) for the watercraft were reviewed. It was determined that the watercraft
  had been altered from the manufacturer specifications. As a result, the determination was made
  that the engine failure was due to the alteration from manufacturer specifications, causing
  excessive RPMs on a poorly maintained motor.

  Based on these facts, documentation, contract language and research into the watercraft’s
  manufacturer specifications, ****** ********* claim was denied and the reason for the denial
  was explained.

  After the denial, Mr. ******* posted a negative comment on the BBB’s website. On or
  about November 11, 2021, ServiceGuard Systems, Inc. responded to the comment. Its response
  noted again that coverage was not provided because the specifical language contained in the
  service contract regarding alteration of the watercraft outside of the watercraft’s manufacturer
  specifications.

  In addition, based on the service contract language, a cancellation letter was sent to
  Ahsley *******. This letter explained that the XtremeGard Marine service contract was
  canceled/voided due to the contractual language.

  Subsequent thereto, BBB forwarded me the complaint in this matter. After receiving the
  complaint referenced herein from Mr. *******, we further investigated this matter. We again
  affirm our decision to deny the claim submitted for this watercraft. Although Mr. *******
  admits that the watercraft was altered (see the complaint), he claims that the watercraft still
  performs within the watercraft’s manufacturer’s specifications. Neither Mr. ******* nor
  ****** *******-the contract holder, has not submitted any documentation of maintenance
  records or that the alterations made by the *******s still allowed the watercraft to perform in
  accordance with Tracker specifications for this particular watercraft.

  The relevant documentation involved in this matter and the reasons for ServiceGuard
  Systems, Inc.’s denial of the claim are being submitted herewith. 

  Based upon the above, I sincerely hope that Mr. ******* (and ****** *******) can
  understand the position of ServiceGuard Systems, Inc., the administrator for the service contract
  at issue. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please feel free to contact
  me.

  Sincerely yours,

  ****** ** *****

*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. ↩