This complaint involves an extended warranty that I purchased in 2009 when I purchased my 2006 Ford 350 diesel 4x4 pick up truck at Huntington Beach Ford. The truck is a lemon law buy back, and I was aware of this. Those repairs were done before purchase. I decided to purchase this extended warranty (48 months) to help protect myself later.
The paper work that they gave me to look over before signing is not very specific...although it does describe what their definition of part failure is: " A covered part has failed when it can no longer perform the function for which it is designed soley due to it's CONDITION, and not due to the action or inaction of any non-covered parts. In addition, a FAILURE will be deemed to have occurred when a covered part has worn beyond the manufacturer's tolerances allowed for that particular vehicle at the mileage when the problem occurs."
3 months ago, the Fuel Injection Control Module failed (at roughly 63,500 miles). They did not replace it, stating that it was not a covered part..although the rest of the fuel injection system is covered, and other control modules are covered. I paid for that repair, although I thought it was convenient that the part did not happen to be covered...just the rest of the fuel injection system.
Just this week, it was determined that one of the turbos failed (64,000 miles). The power steering pump (which also controls the brakes) also failed (leaking seal). The speedometer quit.
When the Ford authorized repair shop called for pre-authorization...Interstate National sent out an inspector to look at the turbo. (Which IS a covered part). They determined that it was NOT caused by abuse or neglect on my part, (i.e. not from the air fliter) nor from any other part failure. It was caused by carbon and rust build up, and a small piece of rust must have broken off (like a piece of straw in a tornado) and bent two of the fins inside the turbo. They denied replacing the part, stating that the cause of failure could not be adequately determined.
I called the company and spoke with Denise Glover. I asked her to re-evaluate the denial, as I feel that it is the "Condition" of the part...it was not caused by the failure of another part, nor was it caused by my abuse or neglect". She still denied coverage and replacement.
I do not think this is fair practice. I do not think that the paperwork that I signed at the time of contract purchase adequately describes the definition of failure of a part....and frankly, I think that this company takes advantage of people, and is very unscrupulous in it's dealings with the public and it's customers. (Ambiguous definitions, decisions based on the whims of the adjusters).
This company is a failure in my book...and I would replace them if I could.
DO NOT pruchase an extended warranty from this company. Save the money instead for the repairs that you will need that they will not cover.