I purchase a Warranty Direct extended warranty a few years ago and on February, 2006, I brought my vehicle (Mercedes S500) to Mercedes Benz of Austin for routine maintenance. Upon inspecting the automobile, the repair technicians discovered further damages, including several leaks, and damage to the airmatic, engine bracket, and sub frame. The dealership informed me that they would speak with Warranty Direct about the items.
The Warranty Direct representative who spoke with the repair mechanic inquired if I (policy holder) was already aware of the damages and chose to continue driving the car. The repair mechanic denied that I was aware of the damages prior to bringing the car to the repair shop. Warranty Direct ordered an inspection appointment to evaluate the damages and assess repair needs. After inspection was complete, Warranty Direct informed the mechanic that certain items (airmatic, engine bracket, and sub frame) were not damaged enough to warrant repair. Warranty Direct denied coverage for the damage on the airmatic, engine bracket, and sub frame, even though such items were not excluded from the policy. It was, however, of the repair mechanic's conclusion that the vehicle damages rendered it unsafe to drive.
I contacted Warranty Direct for an explanation of the denied coverage. The representative I spoke with, Ms. Kia Atkinson, insisted that I previously knew about the damages yet continued to drive the vehicle. This contradicts what the repair shop was told by Warranty Direct. No documentation or evidence was ever presented to indicate that I was aware of the damages prior to the repair assessment.
Since I'm not a mechanic, I have appropriately relied on professional repair technicians to inspect and repair my vehicle. I was not aware of these damages prior to the assessment by a professional repair technician on February. Furthermore, since I have a $0-deductable policy and relies on my vehicle for transportation, I had no motivation to promote these damages to my vehicle, and I acted appropriately by requesting services from a repair technician.
Warranty Direct denied full payment of the necessary repairs to the vehicle during this period in February and March 2006, and only submitted a small payment to the repair facility to cover the leaking issues. Because Warranty Direct refused to pay the claim in full, my out of pocket expense for March 15th invoices was $2077.10.
I submitted a letter to Warranty Direct on March, 2006 informing them of my right to pursue legal action in accordance with the Deceptive Trade Practices Act of Texas and demanded reimbursement for my legitimate claim. Warranty Direct responded to this claim by only offering a reimbursement of $500.00. I did not accept the offer as it is only a small fraction of his expenses.
I wrote an additional reply to Warranty Direct on April, 2006, restating my demand for full reimbursement of the repair costs to his vehicle. Warranty Direct's response was another low offer of $900.00, which I did not accepted.
Another repair need was discovered in May 2006, and I acquired two repair estimates from two different Mercedes repair facilities. Although both repair facilities agreed on the repair needs and estimate amount, Warranty Direct again denied full payment of the claim. Again, the items repaired were not excluded from the terms of my policy, yet I was forced to pay $320.51 out of my own expense for an invoice dated May 8th.
Warranty Direct does not have valid reason nor credible evidence to support the denial of payment of these claims. My warranty policy is current and valid and does not exclude the types of vehicle parts submitted in his claims. As a result, Warranty Direct (Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc.) should be responsible for the full payment.