CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION INC. Red Shield Auto, Red Shield Insurance Company, Red Shield Auto Protection, AutoPom Refused to Honor Auto Warranty Despite Own Expert Stating Couldn't Establish Pre-Existing Leawood Kansas

These people will not pay for a single claim, do not pay them a cent.  Below is one of countless emails I sent them, which lay out the story.   Here's the CEO's contact info:  

Elijah Norton

Chief Executive Officer

4901 W 136th Street

Leawood, KS 66224

Direct: (888) 907-0870 ext 1001

Fax: (913) 904-3450

  Here's the info if your claim is large enough to sue them:   CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION INC. Update this Business

Entity Number: 10408625-0143
Company Type: Corporation - Foreign - Profit
Address: 4901 W 136TH ST Leawood, KS 66224 
State of Origin: KS
Registered Agent: INCORP SERVICES, INC. 
Registered Agent Address: 
285 W TABERNACLE ST STE 201 
Saint George, UT 84770 
View Management Team

Status: Active Purchase Certificate of Existence

Status: Active  as of 06/08/2017
Renew By: 06/30/2019 
Status Description: Current
The "Current" status represents that a renewal has been filed, within the most recent renewal period, with the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. 
Employment Verification: Not Registered with Verify Utah

History View Filed Documents

Registration Date: 06/08/2017
Last Renewed: 05/14/2018

Additional Information   ____________, I am writing to request review of your company's decision not to honor the attached contract (CGC_________)(the "Contract") and additionally, to request that I be emailed copies of any evidence you have to support your decision.     I will not waste your time recounting the story, but the essence is this:

• Contract paid in full as of 12/27/17, in effect as of 1/27/18
• Odometer at time of contract - 65,161
• Effective Mileage and Date - 66, 161 and 1/27/18
• Audi 65,000 mile service check performed on 1/17/2018 indicating no issues with alignment (inspection report attached)
• Repairs needed to address alignment issues on 4/2/2018 (_______ - Estimate)

The service provided by your company has been nothing short of horrendous.  I have yet to receive a single email or letter correspondence of any kind indicating your company's decision, nor would I have gotten a call had my mechanic not told me of your decision and I called three times to speak with you.  That is all disappointing, but admittedly irrelevant - your understanding of the Contract is another matter.   During our phone discussion on 4/6/18, you told me there was rust in photos your inspector had taken leading you to believe all the issues requiring repair (mounts, control arms, etc.) were "long-term conditions" and that you were denying their repair as "pre-existing conditions".  Please provide any evidence upon which you are basing this denial promptly via email.  As you know, the Contract (which legally governs our relationship and obligations) makes no mention of long-term conditions.  As a result, a "long-term condition" cannot be the basis for your denial of a claim.    Rather, the Contract states:   Pre-Existing Condition means a condition, breakdown, or mechanical issue that within all probability occurred before Your purchase of this Service Contract.   It then further states as to exclusions:   SECTION V. EXCLUSIONS – WHAT IS NOT COVERED Coverage is not provided under this Contract for any of the following Exclusions: Pre-Existing Condition(s): Any Vehicle found not to be in good mechanical order at the time this Contract is placed on the Vehicle.   According to the Contract, a "long-term condition" is not a pre-existing condition.  A pre-existing condition must be "found not to be in good mechanical order at the time this Contract is placed on the Vehicle," whereas a "long-term condition" (as I understand your explanation), would be the rust you claim to exist on the control arms and motor mounts.  The control arms were not "found not to be in good mechanical order at the time [the] Contract was placed on the Vehicle" and additionally, despite the lack of mention of such on inspection under the obligations section, I had an inspection performed.  See the Contract, SECTION III. CONTRACT HOLDER’S RESPONSIBILITIES, page 7. 

Again, I have yet to receive evidence of this and further, the alleged rust is not the issue for which I am seeking repair - it is the control arms and motor mounts that did not have issues at the time we executed the Contract.  See Dubuque Estimate.  While I understand your desire to use the explanation of a "long-term condition" to deny my claim, this explanation holds no water because it is not within the Contract.  Your ability to deny my claim thus rests entirely upon it being a pre-existing condition as defined in the Contract.  My requested repairs are not pre-existing conditions.   The repairs requested in the attached (_______ - Estimate) are not pre-existing conditions because: A) the inspection report from 1/17/18 would have shown alignment issues (or atleast improper tire wear - it does not - see 1.17.18 Inspection Report, page 3) had they been problems as of that date, and B) any items for which I am seeking repair were not "found not to be in good mechanical order at the time this Contract is placed on the Vehicle."  The Contract, page 10.     The inspection report clearly shows there were no alignment issues as of this date and further, shows the mileage to be 66,323 as of 1/17/18.  See 1.17.18 Inspection Report, page 3.  Further, the professional doing work on the vehicle has provided an email (see forwarded email) stating the control arms are the source of the issues with the alignment.   Thus, your suggestion that the conditions were pre-existing also would mean that I drove the vehicle something in the realm of 3,300 miles with two broken control arms and two bad motor mounts - a feat that any mechanical professional would state "within all probability," is not possible (see _______ - Estimate, page 1). 

Lastly, the items for which I am seeking repair were not "found not to be in good mechanical order at the time this Contract [was]placed on the Vehicle" - they were found to not be in good mechanical order as of 4/2/18 and 69,677 miles.  This date and mileage is well within the policy period and applicable mileage of 1/27/18 and 66,161.  What occurred is that, "within all probability," the repairs for which I am seeking repair were in proper working order as of the effective date and mileage and have since gone bad.    As the Contract Purchaser, I am entitled to have, "any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract shall be settled in a court of competent jurisdiction, according to the laws of the state where the Contract Purchaser resides at the time the dispute, claim, or controversy arose, and federal law."  Rest assured, the case law is on my side and the statute allows for my recovery of attorneys' fees.   Please reconsider your decision, pay the claim in full and forward all evidence you have upon which you based your prior, incorrect decision.  Please contact __________ at ________ (copied) and deal with this issue properly.  Should this matter need anymore efforts from myself for resolution, my next letter will include an attorney (other than myself) and the FTC.  Should you fail to respond, I will file a complaint with the FTC on May 1, 2018 and will begin taking whatever action I deem necessary to resolve this matter.  Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.     Best,   _______ _______