Complaint Review: CarChex - Internet Internet

My name is Brian Delman and I am the Customer Support Manager at CARCHEX. First I would like to thank you for the opportunity to reply.
 
We are a bit puzzled by this complaint, as in every conversation Mrs. Ogren has had with a CARCHEX employee we tried our best to assist with the situation, and she seemed accepting and extremely appreciative of our help.  Here are the facts of what occurred. On 06/13/2012 a claim was called in to the claim administrator for multiple items:
 
1. Fuel Filler Tube
2. Intake Manifold Gasket, Thermostat housing leak
3. Pan Gasket Trans Fluid Leak
4. Belts Squealing
5. All 4 stabilizer links are worn
 
The repairs for the intake manifold leak and the pan gasket leak were approved without question. As with any service contract, hoses and tubes are not included in the policy so the Fuel Filler Tube was properly denied. As for the belts they are regular maintenance as Mrs. Ogren even acknowledged when she spoke to CARCHEX that she knew when purchasing this used vehicle those belts would have to be changed.
 
That brings me to all 4 stabilizer links being worn. The contract was 67 days past the day of purchase when the claim was made. She had only driven 1001 miles during that period. The claims administrator deemed the 4 stabilizer links as being pre-existing solely because it is quite impossible for ALL 4 stabilizer links to be worn in only 1001 miles. Mrs. Ogren points out in her post that I bought the extended warranty to cover any mechanical issues henceforth, not in hindsight however the components that needed to be repaired (4 Stabilizer Links) were damaged prior to her purchasing her Extended Vehicle Protection and likely prior to her purchase of this used vehicle. 
 
Whenever purchasing a used vehicle CARCHEX always recommends getting a third party independent inspection prior to purchase. Mrs. Ogren stated that she had the vehicle inspected prior to purchasing the vehicle. As it turns out, it was inspected by the dealer selling her the vehicle. The vehicle was also sold to her in an as-is condition with no 30 day warranty. Thats why a third party inspection is critical.  Any vehicle being sold as-is by a dealer without a 30 day warranty should be a huge red flag to a potential buyer.
 
I can understand why CARCHEX is getting the brunt of Mrs. Ogrens frustration because she likely cant go back to the selling dealer who sold the car as-is and ask them to take responsibility, but that fact doesnt make those pre-existing repairs the Extended Vehicle Protection administrators responsibility either.
 
This is a very unfortunate situation and we do sympathize for Mrs. Ogren but CARCHEX and the Extended Vehicle Protection Administrator have done nothing wrong here and on the contrary have only tried to help. Mrs. Ogren even stated on the phone to CARCHEX on how much she really liked the CARCHEX representatives she had spoken with along the way including myself which is why this posting was such a shock to me.
 
So as you can see, based on the actual facts, this was not a case of CARCHEX or the Extended Vehicle Protection provider not fulfilling their contractual obligations but simply a case in which a used vehicle was not sold as advertised and a buyer who didnt make sure the vehicle was in the condition the seller represented prior to buying. Sadly it happens all the time but the intention of an Extended Vehicle Protection Plan is to help pay for future surprise repairs not to pay for part failures that occurred prior to the purchase of the contract as was the case with the four worn stabilizer links.
 
As always, the CEO of CARCHEX, Jason Goldsmith, makes his information readily available on our website and every email that is sent out. If you are ever in need of assistance, you can reach him at [email protected] or 1-877-227-2439 ext 1449.
 
Thank you