Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:32:20 GMT From: 'nuther Bob <stillnoemailnopsamhisuser.com> Subject: Re: Investigation of 1sourceautowarranty.com
On 2 Jul 2003 12:27:00 GMT, davehinznopsamcop.net wrote: >I'm not saying that what they (may or may not) do is right, by any means, >but that if people would use their heads when signing up for something >that costs real money, then people who abuse consumers would have fewer >victims. I agree with you mostly Dave, but there are many folks that don't know enough about cars to even understand the implications of these warranties. I know that I'm the only one in my extended family that would understand that a headgasket leak is rarely covered due to the clause most of them include about "seals" associated with "repair of a covered component" (In other words, they only pay for headgasket replacement when you are having a piston, crank, or valve job done). Just one example... The rest of my family could read this in detail and still miss the implication. The warranty and insurance companies try to bury this all in so much mumbo jumbo that it becomes indecipherable to anyone not intimately familiar with reading legal documents and with the field of automotive repair. Yes, those folks should all seek an advisor, but they don't. Probably "mea culpa" for most buyers. Back to the issue at hand - this company _appears_ to be denying claims in violation of their contract. Since I don't have one on hand, I'll let the lawyers argue it out in court. Bob
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
