;
  • Report:  #605

Complaint Review: Global Warranty Corporation - London Ontario

Reported By:
-
Submitted:
Wed, August 11, 1999
Updated:
Wed, August 11, 1999

Global Warranty Corporation
383 Richmond Stree, Suite 500 London, N6A 3C4 Ontario, Canada
Phone:
(519)672-9356
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Car Insurance

I have had numerous problems with my 1996 Dodge Stratus, and

decided to purchase and extended warranty through the auto's selling

dealer, Bay King Motors.

Since the extended warranty came into effect, it has covered

repairs to replace the head gasket (very expensive repair), and

several sets of front wheel bearings (for both left and right

wheels).

The warranty company Global Warranty Corporation,

(http://global.warranty.net),and selling dealer, Bay King Motors

have been quite reasonable, providing quick hassle free service,

without requiring any service receipts or cost to me.

On July 12th, 1999, I noticed and oil-smell coming from underneath

the car after returning home from nightshift. The vehicle was taken

to an independent service center, where after discussion with the

mechanic who serviced the vehicle at that time, it was decided to

take the vehicle to the selling-dealers service department, as the

repairs would most likely qualify for repairs under the terms of the

extended warranty.

The service representative at Bay King Motors informed me at this

time, that I would have to produce an oil change record for the

vehicle, for every 5000 km, since the extended warranty became

effective (60,000 km). This requirement has never been stated to me

by anyone before, although I do keep my records. Warranty work has

been done and covered on September 26th, 1998, at 77494 km, and

again on September 30th, 1998, at 77,634 km, and additionally, on

October 14th, 1998 at 78707 km. The Bay King invoices in my

possession all show warranty coverage as applying.

The dispute arises out of the recent refusal of Global Warranty

Corporation to cover the repairs I wished to have completed on July

12th, 1999, due to my inability to produce every oil change receipt.

Since the repairs of October 14th, 1998 were covered by warranty, I

argue that as of this point, older history of repairs should not be

a qualifier for repairs, as the issue of eligibility has been

established by the coverage extended.

With the large number of service receipts I possess, it is not

unreasonable that one or more could have been lost, given the fact

that they have often been produced on other service occasions.

Several of the most recent oil change receipts were in the

possession of the technician at Bay King Motors when I picked up my

vehicle on July 13th, 1999, and I had to ask him to return them to

me. It's that easy to misplace receipts. It is even quite possible

that this may have happened before, without my knowledge, and in Bay

King Motors service department. There is no way of determining where

or when the service receipts were lost, nor is there any way to

disprove the same.

Now several of these fragile service receipts seems to be at the

root of Global Warranty Corporations recent coverage refusal.

The repairs were carried out, at a cost of over $2,200.00 (Can.),

by an independent service facility, one that has no affiliation with

Global Warranty Corporation, in order to keep the required repairs

independent from possible future disputed with both Bay King

Motors, and Global Warranty Corporation. (Bay King Motors sold me

the extended warranty, thus accepting a commision for the sale).

I have repeatedly emailed the Global Warranty Corporation, and have

exercised great considering the personal insult that is implied...

that I have failed to maintain my vehicle.

The purchase of an extented warranty at a cost of over $1,600.00

(Can.), and two complete sets of tires and rims (one set for winter

use, and one set for summer use), are not indicative of a vehicle

owner with neglect and short term use and reliability objectives.

The Ontario Drive Clean Program results for this vehicle would tend

to support that the engine is performing well, and again, this

indicates good maintenance practices:

Limit Reading Result (July 19, 1999)

HC ppm 80 10 PASS

CO % .45 .13 PASS

NO ppm 607 55 PASS

The transmission failed due to component failure internally, where a

pin worked it's way loose of it's press-fit, and began to strike the

casing internally, which caused a breach of an oil passage cast into

the transmissions casing.

Normal servicing could not have detected this impending failure, and

since it was an internal component failure of the transmission,

_engine_ oil changes have no effect whatsoever on preventing this

from occuring. (I have saved the failed components, should court

action be required).

I am anticipating a reasonable offer from Global Warranty

Corporation, and check for email/written/phone correspondence from

them on a daily basis.

...Still waiting...

HC ppm



Featured Reports
Reports & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!