Company Response
11/7/2024
Alpha Warranty Services, Inc. (“we”, “us” or “our”) is in receipt of the Consumer Complaint (“Complaint”) that we received on November 6, 2024, submitted by contract holder, Nicole Armentrout and her vehicle service contract, VSC1000054445 (“Contract”) for a 2015 Nissan Rogue Select S, VIN JN8AS5MV6FW252721 (“Vehicle”). We appreciate the opportunity to reply.
As background, our understanding is that Ms. Armentrout purchased, signed, and received her Contract on or about April 9, 2022. She purchased our A La Car® Contract. The Customer Summary in the Complaint incorrectly states that a warranty was purchased, but the Contract is a vehicle service contract and not a warranty. The Contract is an inclusionary contract, meaning that it only covers parts and repairs that are listed under the Contract. While this is a significant number of parts, it is not every single part of the Vehicle. The Contract clearly explains that if the part is not listed, it’s not covered. Please see item 1 under the “What Is Not Covered” section of the Contract.
We note that as of today, zero claims have been opened under the Contract. Claims are opened when a vehicle is brought into a repair facility, and the facility calls our claims department to report any issues with the vehicle to proceed with reviewing coverage. We do not have a record of any facilities calling in a claim for the Vehicle.
On or about October 31, 2024, Ms. Armentrout called our customer support department to ask if a replacement of a CV axle was covered under her Contract. A customer support representative explained to Ms. Armentrout that CV axles are not listed for coverage under the Contract.
On or about November 4, 2024, Ms. Armentrout’s mother called our customer support department to ask if CV boots are covered under her Contract. A customer support representative explained to her that CV boots are not listed for coverage under the Contract.
On that same day, Ms. Armentrout called our customer support department to review the coverage in her Contract because she believed CV boots were covered. A customer support representative went over the terms and coverage provided under the Contract and explained again that CV boots are not listed for coverage and are therefore ineligible for coverage under the Contract.
As previously stated, we are unaware and have no record of if the Vehicle was taken to a repair facility because no repair facilities have opened a claim under the Contract. We have not received any information as to what malfunction or failure occurred that would result in a CV boot replacement. The point and cause of failure is normally provided to our claims department by repair facilities once they’ve inspected the Vehicle.
From the Customer Summary in the Complaint, Ms. Armentrout stated that a CV boot needed to be replaced because the CV boot had a tear.
With this information (that we haven’t heard until the Complaint), we submit that the Contract expressly excludes coverage for torn or split boots. Please see item 15 in the “What Is Not Covered” section of the Contract.
After reviewing the entirety of the Contract, we believe that the matter was handled correctly pursuant to the Contract and its terms. We submit that the Contract that Ms. Armentrout purchased remains active. We trust that we have responded to the Complaint, however, if you have any additional questions, or if you believe that we have misunderstood anything, please kindly let our Legal Counsel, Jeffrey Olsen, know and we will happily revisit this matter. His email is [email protected]. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any reason.
Read More