Warranty Direct - Deceitful
Ive purchased 2 separate Extended Car Warranties for the same vehicle from this company.I purchased the first warranty in 2009 when my vehicle (2007 Nissan Frontier NISMO) had 30,000 miles for $1,500.
The coverage on this warranty has in force for 5 yrs or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first. I had a few repairs under this warranty and was generally happy with the company. The cost of the repairs would have been slightly higher than the cost of the warranty, it turned out to be a financial wash but I enjoyed the peace of mind. When that contract expired, I was contacted by the company and asked if I would like to purchase another Warranty to cover the vehicle for another 5 years or 100,000 miles.
We reviewed the cost of the repairs from the previous warranty and what I had paid for the coverage after some discussion I decided that purchasing another warranty would be wise. My vehicle is getting older and I did plan on keeping it for some time. The second warranty was purchased in 2014 and the vehicle now had 99,000 miles. Purchase price was $1,900.
Again, I had no complaints about the company at this time, but that was about to change. I submitted my first claim in March of 2015. The issue was related to my AC. The covered items are listed in the contract and I was told the failed part in question was not a covered component.
I didnt dispute - my experience with the company had been positive up to this point. (I am asking for additional detail as to what had failed so I can double check against the contract). My next claim occurred in November of 2016 (mileage was at 133,000 well within the warranty parameters). Two separate issues this time.
The first issue was the secondary timing chain tensioners (sometimes called guides or shoes). The issue is the component (guide) has worn thru and the timing chain is in direct contact with the tensioner shaft. After some research, it appears this is a somewhat common failure on VQ40 Engines and other Nissan vehicles. The timing chain systems are prone to premature failure, before the end of the useful life of the vehicles, and well before consumers reasonably expect any such failure to occur.
This presents a serious safety issue and places the driver and passengers at a risk of harm. The Timing Chain Systems form an integral component of the Subject Nissan Vehicles engines. When they fail, they can cause a variety of problems, including the inability of the vehicles to accelerate and maintain speed, as well as catastrophic engine failure, among other issues. The second issue was a split engine mount.
The engine mount is the part that holds the engine to the body of the vehicle. This is usually comprised of heavy duty rubber and in the Arizona heat, they are prone to failure. The covered components for the Engine are listed as ENGINE. (a) The following lubricated internal parts: pistons, pins & rings, connecting rods & bearings; crankshaft & main bearings; camshaft, followers & cam bearings; push rods, valves, springs, replaceable guides, seats & lifters; rocker arms, shafts & bushings; timing gear, chain, tensioners & retainers; eccentric shaft; oil pump.
(b) Timing belt; serpentine belt; Water pump: Impeller shaft, bearings, bushings & housing; intake & exhaust manifolds; engine mounts & cushions; engine torque strut; harmonic balancer; flywheel (flex plate) & flywheel ring gear; mechanical fuel pump; fuel sending unit; dipstick & tube; all pulleys. (c) All lubricated internal parts of the vehicle manufacturer installed turbocharger or supercharger. The housing is covered ONLY if damaged by the Failure of a lubricated internal part. (d) Engine head(s); engine block; cylinder barrels; timing cover; valve cover(s); oil pan; dipstick & tube, ONLY if damaged by the Failure of a lubricated internal part.
I was informed that the claim was denied due to wear or tear (I take this to mean that the failed parts are considered a covered part and they are explicitly listed in the components above). The applicable clause in the contract is listed below Failure is defined as a Failure of a defective part or faulty workmanship as supplied by the Manufacturer or Dealer, but does not include gradual reduction in operating performance due to wear or tear or damage resulting from Failure of non-covered parts. Remember, I purchased this Warranty when my vehicle was 7 yrs old and 100,000 miles. Every single component on this vehicle will have some wear or tear on it.
To deny a claim based upon is simply wrong in every aspect of honesty and trustworthiness. Neither component I submitted for coverage was a wearable part where one would expect to replace during the life of the vehicle. The fact that the part has worn (or split) is indicative of failure. I have called the company on several occasions asking for another review of the determination.
The Service Department at the dealership has also called several times asking to speak to someone in authority. My attempts always end up with the Customer Service Reps who are only capable of reading notes to me from the inspector but they have no authority to escalate or resolve an issue. Im told by the Service Department this type of repair is routinely authorized by other warranty companies.
Id appreciate any thoughts you have on this and I would appreciate you sharing this post.Let my mistake help prevent someone else from purchasing a worthless warranty from an unabashed dishonest company.
Review about: Warranty Direct Car Warranty.
Reason of review: Warranty issue.