Are you interested in learning more about the Vehicle Service Contracts lawsuit? It is important to note that this is not an exclusive lawsuit affecting Infinite Auto Protection. There are many others, including CarShield, Enterprise Financial Group, and Infinite Auto Protection. In this article, we will discuss a few of the most common types of vehicle service contracts. The lawsuits against these companies are similar to others filed against the Auto Service Association and the Federal Trade Commission.
Infinite Auto Protection
The California Department of Insurance has issued a cease and desist order and an Order to Show Cause against Opulent Marketing, Inc., doing business as Infinite Auto Protection. The Department alleges that the company illegally sold Vehicle Service Contracts, including coverage for routine maintenance and repairs. The company failed to file the contracts with the Department and did not use a backup insurer to cover unforeseen costs. The company charged consumers more than $58,000 for the contracts.
Consumers have complained about Infinite Auto Protection’s coverage for things like oil changes and replacements, but the company does not cover issues the customer causes. They do offer roadside assistance, but only reimburse up to a certain amount of money. Infinite Auto Protection will only cover a tire change fee up to a certain amount per year and only reimburses up to a specific dollar amount if it happens more than 100 miles from home.
The company has three plans available: Modern, Foundation, and Prime. These plans are designed to cover the cost of repairs for vehicles up to 140,000 miles. The contracts are known as stated-component contracts, meaning they do not provide bumper-to-bummer coverage or exclusionary warranty coverage. If you own a used vehicle, you should consider purchasing one of these plans. Infinite Auto Protection has a history of negative press.
CarShield
The Better Business Bureau received over 1,000 complaints about CarShield Vehicle Service Contracts in the past three years. Of those, nearly 300 were filed against CarShield, and 176 against American Auto Shield. However, the BBB found no evidence to support its allegations of bias or deceptive marketing. As a result, the lawsuit is ongoing. Here are some things you need to know about CarShield and the Auto Service Contracts industry.
The BBB issued a consumer alert about CarShield Vehicle Service Contracts after receiving over 500 complaints from customers. These complaints were based on the company’s advertisements and failed to address the underlying pattern of complaints. In addition, the company has a 4-star rating on WalletHub and a history of complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau. In addition to the BBB’s warning, consumers should carefully read their contracts before signing on the dotted line. In addition, you should consider setting up a rainy-day fund for car repair needs.
The BBB notes that the company has not provided coverage, and claims are handled by third-party “plan administrators.” These companies decide whether to pay out for repairs. Bailey claims that the company misleads customers and fails to disclose the terms and conditions of its contracts. Furthermore, the company will not pay for repairs if the customer continues to drive the vehicle after the issue has been reported. Bailey says CarShield agreed to pay for a diagnostic fee but then left the customer responsible for the repair costs.
Enterprise Financial Group
Consumers are suing Enterprise Finance Group for alleged violations of Minnesota law relating to vehicle service contracts. The lawsuit alleges that EFG failed to honor its terms by delaying refunds and failing to issue a 10% monthly penalty for late refunds. As a result, consumers did not receive full refunds as promised. The lawsuit is part of a larger investigation into EFG’s practices related to vehicle service contracts. Consumers may not realize that these contracts are not as transparent as they seem to be. However, it’s worth examining.
While the BBB does not publish its decisions, EFG has received numerous unresolved complaints. In Dallas, the BBB cited five complaints that had not yet been resolved. The BBB has reviewed the complaints but has yet to remove them from its list of unresolved complaints. It’s unclear what this means for the future of EFG’s vehicle service contracts, but it’s worth investigating.
The lawsuit states that EFG sells worthless “extended warranty” contracts that fail to cover a wide variety of repairs and maintenance. Consumers must contact the seller within 30 days to obtain a refund, which typically consists of the purchaser’s down payment. However, this is not possible because EFG does not transmit any funds related to these contracts until 30 days after they’re signed. Without a refund, consumers would not have an enforceable contract with EFG.
