ComplaintsforRenascent Protection Services

• Initial Complaint

  11/29/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  When I purchased my vehicle, I also purchased an extended warranty called Triton Protect. I began having problems with my vehicle. I contacted the warranty program and they told me that I can take my vehicle to any authorized provider. I took my vehicle to Precision Tune Auto Care ***** ************ *** ****** ****** ** *****, ###-###-####). When the mechanic did the break down in front of the inspector, it was agreed that the timing belt was loose which was causing the failure and the issue was not caused by neglect. When the air test was completed nothing but oil came out as expected. The warranty company later contacted the mechanic (*****) and told him that the claim was denied. They told him and myself that the inspector wrote in the report that there was a restriction in the oil passage and the failure was caused by an outside obstruction which is not true. They stated that the report did not indicate what the obstruction was nor would they provide a copy of the report or claim denial letter. The warranty company is refusing to pay for the repair that is clearly covered.

  Customer response

  12/14/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20929971
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  The repair facility will be sending pictures that will dispute the inspection finding indicating that the mechanical failure was due to restriction of oil flow due to lack of maintenance, abuse, etc.  I would like to keep the claim open until Renascent Protection Solutions review the pictures and agree to approve the repair.
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *******

  Business response

  12/20/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ******* *******, Complaint ID BBB-20929971, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on December 20, 2023, 2023. Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Renascent awaits the photographic evidence to be sent by ******* *******. Upon receipt of ******* *******’s additional evidence, Renascent will review the claim and see if the new evidence impacts the original adjudication determination. Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ******************. 

  Customer response

  12/29/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20929971
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  the repair facility has sent the requested pictures 3-4 times already as well as yesterday, December 28th and they are still waiting on a response back from the warranty company.  This has been going on for almost 2 months and I still do not have my car repaired.  Not having a car is affecting my ability to work but yet I'm still making car payments.  I have been very patient; however, this is not acceptable!
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *******

  Business response

  01/19/2024

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ******* *******, Complaint ID BBB-20929971, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on December 20, 2023, 2023.

  
  

  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* *******’s file, the claim was denied due Exclusion D of Section V which includes but is not limited, exclusions based upon lack of maintenance, abuse, carbo or sludge build up or failure to maintain proper level of lubricants. The inspection stated the mechanical failure was due to restriction of oil flow. The contract holder disputed the denial and was told that if the repair facility performed further diagnostic testing which showed some other causation for the mechanical breakdown, the claim would be re-adjudicated. However, no further diagnostic has been done and that is still the case to this date. The claim remains on hold, awaiting completion of the further diagnostic—which has not been done. The path to complete this claim has been communicated.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ******************.

  Customer response

  02/02/2024

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20929971
  
  I am rejecting this response because: when I spoke to the supervisor **** on January 18th he advised that there was a restriction (which he stated the restriction wasn't identified and later stated the restriction was assumed) that was assumed to have been blown out when they did the air test.  He stated that corrected the problem and that there's nothing that needed to be repaired.  He stated that once the repair facility put the engine back together after completing the breakdown the car should work fine.  I called the repair facilty and advised of what **** stated.  The repair facility stated that the vehicle has been put back together and it still has the same problem.  The check engine light comes on coding that the timing is out of sync.  He sent me a video that he sent to the company showing the timing chain is loose and that the oil is clear.  The repair facility stated there's no sludge build up in the motor showing any form of neglect of maintenance or abuse which you can clearly see in the video.  I called **** and left a message and asked him to call me back.  He has never called me back. The warranty company is not being truthful.  This has been going on for 3 months.  
  

  Regards,
  

  
  ******* *******

   

  Business response

  05/16/2024

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ******* *******, Complaint ID BBB-20929971, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on December 20, 2023, 2023. Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* *******’s file, the contract holder disputed the denial and was told that if the repair facility performed further diagnostic testing which showed some other causation for the mechanical breakdown, the claim would be readjudicated. However, we have not been contacted by the repair facility stating any new failure has been found or that they have performed any new tear down to support coverage under the contract or proceed the claim forward as the required diagnostic testing has not been done. The claim remains on hold, awaiting completion of the further diagnostic—which has not been done. The path to complete this claim has been communicated to Mr. *******. The resolution of this matter is up to him. While wholly within Mr. *******’s discretion, Renascent suggests that he might take the vehicle to a Hyundai dealer that specializes in repairs for this type of vehicle so that the proper testing can be completed, and the claim finalized. Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ssingh@rps-tpa.com.

  Customer response

  05/28/2024

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20929971
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 

  I had to go another route with the vehicle; therefore, I would like to close this complaint without the matter being resolved with the company.
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *******

• Initial Complaint

  11/14/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Claim date: 11/10/2023 Claim Number: V49704 Contract holder name: ****** ******* (Self) Company Name: Renascent Protection Solutions Adjuster Name: *** ****** (Ext. ****) Phone:-###-###-#### Call info: Called at 11/14/2023 at 11:44 A.M, call duration: 7 Mins Legal Dept: legal@rps-tpa.com I bought bumper to bumper extended warrenty when i bought my car last year, i am still under warrenty. I have two issues 1. Transfer case is faulty: It was diagnosed from BMW facility, when adjuster came for on site review, the claim was denied due to their notes stating my tires are not right size and thus they will be declining my claim, i checked with my mechanic at BMW (Since i had them installed in BMW service station) and i was told that my tires are infact the right size, when i brought this up to adjuster (who was VERY disrespectful on the phone) advised me that there is nothing they can do about it. :THIS IS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT TO PAY THEIR BILLS 2. Rear passenger side door is not latching: My wife went to drop my kid at the school and all of a sudden the door got wide open (While she was driving), my kid could have fall out side. Then my wife went to nearest garage to have it cheked and we found out that two screws fell out and they were missing, resulting in not being able to close the door. The mechanic JUST added two missing screws so my wife can reach home safely BUT the adjuster is not processing this claim stating the part has been replaced, the mechanic DID NOT add any new parts or touched anywhere else, all he did was put on two screws, THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE REASON for declining the claim. I have three major repais (Costing $10,000) in my car and it being denied for not valid reasons. My expectation would be they act like humans and understands someones issues rather then looking for irrelevant issues to decline the claim

  Business response

  12/06/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ****** Panchal, Complaint ID BBB-20870546, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on December 1, 2023, 2023.
  
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ****** ********* file, Mr. ******* had tires that exceeded the manufacturer’s requirements for the vehicle. This is an exclusion to coverage under the terms of the contract. As there was an exclusion to coverage, his claim was properly denied.
  
  
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ******************. 
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  11/09/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased Ultimate warranty with Performance First aka Allegiance Administrators Nov 2022. My car is a luxury Mercedes GL450. Upon purchase of vehicle, I was informed this warranty wad specifically for luxury brand cars from PNX Luxury cars in Seattle by ***** ***** IV. Nov 2023 - I brought the SUV into Mercedes Tacoma to get diagnosed for Malfunction message in suspension. Basically, the back of the car went down and would not come back up causing major bumpiness. Mercedes Tacoma diagnosed it to need - new OEM rear air bags for suspension - this is a major mechanical issue and thus, would be covered by warranty. Mercedes Tacoma said labor is 8 hrs. Upon follow up with warranty company, they authorized non-OEM parts and 2 hrs of labor, expecting me to pay the difference in both parts and labor. They referenced a page 2 in the contract. Review of page 2, it states a variety of parts can be purchased under their sole discretion. However, it does not state parts can be replaced without warranty on those parts. At this point, this company is a scam. Seeking legal advice in moving forward.

  Business response

  12/07/2023

  We are looking into this. 

  Customer response

  12/08/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20848726
  
  I am rejecting this response because: no business response added to this thread. I was not able to read anything from Ohio.
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *****

  Business response

  01/02/2024

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of *******
  *****, Complaint ID BBB-20848726, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on November 14,
  2023, 2023.
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* *****’s file, we
  found that her claim was approved, and parts authorized. Therefore, Renascent is uncertain what the
  underlying issue Ms. ***** may have that requires the filing of a complaint. It may be Ms. ***** issue that
  the parts approved were not Mercedes OEM parts, however, the parts authorized have a one-year warranty
  and are generally accorded as equal to or better than the similar Mercedes OEM parts. Ms. *****’ contract
  at Article II under “Breakdown Coverage” states very clearly that Renascent may use new, non-OEM,
  remanufactured or used parts at Renascent’s sole discretion. The claim was authorized, parts approved for
  installation with a one-year warranty. Ms. ***** contract has been complied with and any delay is caused by
  her alone.
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ******************. 

  Customer response

  01/03/2024

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20848726
  
  I am rejecting this response because: insurance did not cover labor required ro repair. I was billed labor when insurance is suppose to cover it.

  
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *****

• Initial Complaint

  11/02/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  • Renascent Protection Services has refused to honor a claim for repairs to my 2008 Boxster S which is covered by a 14 May 2022 Performance First Vehicle Service Contract ********** that Renascent administers. • Instead it has demanded that a totally unwarranted and unnecessary $4,000.00 diagnostic procedure, an engine teardown, be conducted at my expense. The request is outside of scope of the contract: The contract only provides for such teardowns if in the judgment of a Licensed Repair Facility it is necessary “to determine the cause and cost of the repair”. • A Licensed Repair Facility recommended by Renascent has inspected my vehicle and determined “the cause and cost of the repair” without resort to an engine teardown. It has found bore scoring in cylinder 6 and determined that a “short block” replacement is needed at a cost of $26,341.24. • In view of these determinations the demand for an engine teardown is not needed and would provide no additional insight or value. • Reputable sources on the internet including the Porsche Club Of America make it clear that “bore scoring” is a not uncommon problem in 2008 Porsche Boxster S’s that have only been subject to normal use with appropriate maintenance. These sources also make it clear that the appropriate repair to fix this problem is replacement of the “short block”. • Renascent has tried to justify its demand on its desire to conduct its own inspection of the vehicle and its desire to determine if there is further damage to the engine. The contract does not provide Renascent with any right to conduct its own inspection and any such damage would automatically be fixed at no additional cost by a “short block” replacement. • Renascent has not identified any obligation of mine under the contract that I have not fulfilled other than inappropriately demanding that I authorize an engine teardown at my expense. • Renascent’s demand for an engine teardown appears to be a tactic to delay or avoid honoring my claim.

  Business response

  11/14/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ***** ******,
  Complaint ID BBB-20814348, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on November 9, 2023.
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ***** ******’s file, this
  claim was called in by the repair facility on October 9, 2023. There have been ongoing communications with
  the repair facility on October 10, 11, 17, 18 and 26 reiterating the need to complete the diagnostics and tear
  down the engine to determine the cause of the failure. The repair center has stated that they will not complete
  the tear down to determine the cause of the failure of the engine. Finding the cause of failure is required for
  coverage and authorization of the repair under Article VII(B)(4) of the terms of the contract. There has been
  no denial of this claim. We are waiting on the repair center to complete the diagnostics required to fully
  determine the cause of the failure of the engine so the full cost of the repair and root cause of the failure are
  known.
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ******************. 

  Customer response

  11/22/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20814348
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The Licensed Repair Facility has inspected the 2008 Porsche Boxster S covered by the 14 May 2022 Vehicle Service Contract and was able “to determine the cause and cost of the repair” without conducting an engine tear down. Article VII(B)(4) only calls for a “teardown of Your vehicle in order to determine the cause and cost of the repair” [emphasis added]. This result has been communicated to Renascent along with a request that Renascent authorize the determined repair.
  
  The Licensed Repair Facility has not refused to proceed with an engine tear down, but it has required that it be paid $4,000 in advance for the cost of the teardown.

  
  The “full cost of the repair and root cause of the failure are known” today from the diagnostics that the Licensed Repair Facility has already performed. The cause is bore scoring and the repair is a short block replacement. Renascent has not explicitly challenged these findings.
  Renascent has refused to process the claim that has been presented to it and has instead made demands not authorized by the Vehicle Service Contract. It is demanding that the Licensed Repair Facility conduct an expensive diagnostic procedure that the Facility has determined is unnecessary. Thus it has refused to honor a claim presented to it in accordance with the Vehicle Service Contract.
  
  I am prepared to proceed to mediation facilitated by the Better Business Bureau Of Central Ohio as provided for by Article VIII of the Vehicle Service Contract for “any dispute arising under this Contract”.
  
  Regards,
  
  ***** ******

  Customer response

  12/06/2023

  Better Business Bureau:

  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID .20814348, and find Mediation is necessary.

  Regards,

  ***** ******

  Business response

  12/06/2023

  Better Business Bureau:

  I have reviewed the response made by the consumer in reference to complaint ID .20814348, and find Mediation is necessary.

  Thank you.

• Initial Complaint

  10/02/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My key Fob went out it is to start my truck so it wouldnt start. I called Bob"S auto one of the mechanics from Endurance and I had my truck towed there. When I called roadside assistance I assumed it would be a tow truck coming from the same county where my truck needed to be towed. The truck came from adiffernt county way north of me and cost me an extra $33. The key Fob was replaced with a blank key which had a chip so they programed the key to my truck so I have 3 keys that do something different. I dont no why he didnt order another key Fob and program it. I told them I had a brand new key Fob, The mechanic said it was junk without trying to program it. The truck sat in his garage for 4 days while the shop tryed to get ahold of anyone at Endurance to submit the claim. it was denied but the contract I had said it covered lost stolen or damaged key fobs. I called and Endurance said my contract was outdated so it wasnt covered. But I never recieved the updated contract and Iam still waiting to recieve one. If I would of known my key fob wasnt going to covered by Endurance the I would never of had my truck towed to a shop to be fixed, I could of ordered the key fob machine and programed a new key fob myself it would of been way cheaper. Its is Endurance responsibility to send me or call to and let me no my old contract was going to expire, I had called many times to customer service and was never told my contract was expired never received any email saying it was expired and they were sending a updated contract. I have been on line as member to Endurance and never was it saying my contract was only good for a year and I had to renew it.I have asked for a new one and its been a month and still havent received one. how am I suppose to no my key fob was not covered. Iam about ready to cancel my membership with them. I would Like to be refunded for the $33 extra I had to pay for towing.

  Business response

  10/02/2023

  Endurance is the selling agent for this contract. The administrator is Allegiance Administrators, LLC. Allegiance Administrators, LLC?is responsible for the approval or denial of claims. Endurance plays no role in the administration of claims and is not authorized to respond on behalf of the administrator. 
  
  Please forward this complaint to Allegiance Administrators, LLC (****************) 

  Business response

  10/16/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ******* ********, Complaint ID BBB-********, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on October 10, 2023, 2023.
  
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* ********* file,
  
  
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me a* ******************* 

  Customer response

  11/29/2023

  Complaint Type:
  Billing or Collection Issues
  Billing or Collection Issues
  select
  Problem:
  The amount of money I paid to have a key fob replaced which never was done. On Aug 2,2023 I called Endurance Warranty to have my truck towed to one of their mechanics that was listed on their site. The tow truck came from outside the county where I lived and I ended up paying $33 since my towing limit was $100. I was never told it was coming from a different county than where I lived. And it was only a mile to the shop from my house where the shop was located. My key fob which starts my truck broke I replaced the battery and still would not start my truck it just worked to lock and unlock the truck and roll down the windows. My truck sat in the shop for 4 days the mechanic said he could not get ahold of anyone in the claims department to submit the claim to see if the warranty was going to cover a new key fob. The contract I had read If the key fob was damaged,lost or destroyed it would coverup to $500 to repair or be replaced. The mechanic went ahead and got my truck started he said his locksmith had to program the key to start my truck. He didnt submit the claim to see if it was going to be paid for or not because he couldnt get ahold of anyone at Endurance. I went to the shop and called from his phone and I got ahold of the claims department and he talked to them and the claim was denied. They said I had the old contract which was good for only a year. The new contract dosent cover the key fob. I never recieved the new contract never was told my contract ended after a year. I dont see anywhere in my old contract that it states its only good for one year. I had to Pay for the work that was done before submitting the claim to Endurance. If I would of known it was going to be denied I would of had the truck towed back to my house. I paid $727 and when the mechanic went to bring my truck to the office he handed me a regular Dodge key not a new key fob. So now I have my old key fob that opens my truck and a dodge key uncut that he programmed the chip to start my truck. I dont no why he didnt program a new key fob. I told him I had ordered to new key fobs for my truck they just need to be programed and he said no they were junk. He never replaced my broken key fob. He gave me a regular dodge key uncut to start my truck. Now the key fob that I had that was broken will not work to roll the windows down or open my truck it dosent work at all. so now all I have is a key to start my truck and the broken key fob that dosent do anything. I cant afford to pay for a new key fob when that was what the mechanic was suppose to do in the first place. I want my money refunded or he needs to order and program a new key fob he was suppose to do the first time. Iam sending a picture of the key he gave me and a picture of the key fob that he should of replaced.
  
  Desired Resolution / Outcome
  Desired Resolution:
  Billing Adjustment
  Billing Adjustment
  select
  

  
  

  Business response

  01/19/2024

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ******* ********, Complaint ID BBB-********, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on January 3, 2024.

  
  

  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* William’s file, her claim was adjudicated properly. The key fob and ball joints were not covered components under the terms of her contract and those items were correctly denied. This is simply not debatable as it is set forth in the terms of the contract.

  
  

  The water pump is a covered component under the terms of the contract and that portion of her claim was correctly authorized, approved and paid. Similarly, as this component was listed, this portion of the claim was approved.

  
  

  There is no debate to continue arguing either way and the claim was properly adjudicated.

  
  

  
  

  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ******************.

• Initial Complaint

  09/17/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On 09/04/23 & I was told I needed a new transmission & CV joints. They asked the shop rep for unnecessary maintenance documentation for my engine, but the transmission was in need of replacement. To their surprise, I had EVERY maintenance documented. It took them the next week to respond to the car shop rep. I even had to email my maintenance documentation to a claim rep with no response. On 09/15/23 the shop rep received an email from the Claims Adjuster rep that they authorized a maximum dollar amount of $ 1,000 towards repairing my 2007 Nissan Altima based on the cash value of my vehicle and the limit per the contract terms. Nowhere in my contract stated that parts and labor are based on the actual cash value of my car. it is based on Reasonable Cost, meaning that the repair costs are recognized locally and/or nationally for a similar repair—also, replacement parts may be new, remanufactured, or of like kind and quality. Reimbursement is based on the Manufacturer’s Suggested Repair Price for parts & the labor is based on a nationally recognized labor manual & total Aggregate Limit of Liability for all Claims paid or payable during the term of this Service Contract shall not exceed a total dollar amount of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars. I had to pay a diagnostic fee of $190 to the repair facility & take my car home. There was no response, & they did not intend to honor my contract from the initial start. My contract was priced at $4,600. My car was in the shop from 09/04/23 to 09/15/23, with no contact from anyone. I had to seek out & I kept running into a person named Parm ###-###-#### parm@nasctpa.com. My son is an Autistic adult who is in college & cannot drive. He relies on me to take him where he needs to go (school & doctor visits). My contract was purchased on 07/23/20, the price was $4,600.00, & my mileage at the start of my contract was 189,753. My current mileage is 203,021, meaning only 13,268 miles had been added when this contract was signed.

  Business response

  10/05/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ******* 
  *******, Complaint ID BBB-20616157, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on October 3, 
  2023. 
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* *******’s 
  file, it is noted that he has reached the limit of his contractual benefits. Mr. *******’s contract limits the 
  aggregate benefits any contract holder can obtain at the Actual Cash Value (“ACV”) of their vehicle. 
  In this instance, Mr. ******* has reached the ACV limit of the contract benefits and has no more benefits 
  available under the terms of the contract. 
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ssingh@rps-tpa.com. 

  Customer response

  10/06/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20616157
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The statement that below from the business is false.

  "Upon review of ******* *******’s
  file, it is noted that he has reached the limit of his contractual benefits. Mr. *******’s contract limits the aggregate benefits any contract holder can obtain at the Actual Cash Value (“ACV”) of their vehicle.
  In this instance, Mr. ******* has reached the ACV limit of the contract benefits and has no more benefits
  available under the terms of the contract."

  No where in my contract that states this.  Please ask the business to point out in my contract (See attached) where the ACV has been reached it's limited or even applied based on the contracts terms.  

  Page 9 Section D clearly states:

  D. Limit of Liability:
  "Our total Aggregate Limit of Liability for all Claims paid or payable during the term of this Service Contract
  shall not exceed a total dollar amount of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars."

  On page 6 Section II ONLY shows the definition for: 

  Actual Cash Value (ACV) – Means the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) published average wholesale
  value of Your Vehicle immediately prior to Breakdown taking age, condition, and mileage into consideration.

  This Definition is no where applied in context of my warranty contract.  The Business cannot show the actual terms in the actual contract.  Instead a false statement with no credible validation can be made based on prior responses to the BBB.  
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *******

• Initial Complaint

  09/12/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased a performance first warranty from savvy auto sales around 11 months ago on a 2021 gmc sierra 2500hd. Long story short I paid $3,000 for this extended warranty. After my entire engine went out this warranty company WOULD NOT answer the phone. The dealership called them I believe they said 26 times and waited on hold for 8 hours at one point. They still never even showed up to pay for this repair!!! After getting the truck repaired and no help from this warranty company still the check engine light came on on the truck after being fixed. Sensor in the motor was out. The dealership REACHED OUT AGAIN after the warranty company made up sine crap that their systems were down and were told they would pay for it. After days of waiting and still nothing I took the truck from the dealership with a check engine light on. The warranty company wouldn't give me my 3 thousand dollars back for a warranty that is WORTHLESS. The dealership was useless. Moral of the story this warranty company is a literal scam as is savvy auto sales out of Columbus ohio

  Business response

  09/26/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of *******
  *******, Complaint ID BBB-20595008, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on September 25,
  2023.
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* ********* file,
  the mechanical issues being experienced by Mr. ******* on his 2021 GMC 2500 pickup are covered by the
  manufacturer’s warranty. This was discussed with the repair facility who is confirming. Mr. ********* claim
  has been placed on hold pending the finalization of the confirmation of the repair facility of coverage by the
  manufacturer’s warranty.
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ssingh@rps-tpa.com.

• Initial Complaint

  09/12/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On 8-23-23, Id taken my 2015Range Rover to Land Rover Main Line *** * ********* *** ****** ** ****** due to a low coolant light that come onto the dash board. I checked the coolant while the car was cold, and the coolant level was at the minimum coolant level. I then saw a leaking coolant hose and ask them to replace it. Prior to me dropping my vehicle off, the coolant never went below the minimum line. When the dealership did their diagnostic, it indicated a blown head gasket. The repair cost was $13k. I verified with William Taylor of Renascent Protection Services, Claims Dept, that my warranty would cover the head gasket repair. He explained to me &the Dealership, that the warranty would cover the head gasket repair with the condition that Range Rover would take the engine apart so Warranty could confirm The head gasket was blown. Range Rover complied. An Adjuster verified it was blown. Days later, Warranty denied the claim, stating, the leaky hoses caused it to blow. Range Rover asserts that it didnt blow due to a leaky hose because the auto never ran hot, the heads in the motor which would be altered and warped due to high heat, were not altered but in perfect shape with proper measurement specs. The check engine light never come on, which would occur if the engine overheated. Inspections of the engine itself proved the engine to be in great condition with the exception of the head gasket. The dealer is still in possession of my vehicle with the engine that has been dismantled (with the understanding that the warranty would cover the cost of the blown head gasket). They’ve been in communication with Warranty’s Claims to no avail. If a leaky coolant hose not generating a leak below the minimum line, would cause a head gasket to blow conclusively, without any other signs inside or outside of the engine, why did Warranty require Range Rover to take the engine apart? I am humbly requesting that the (warranty comp.) cover the repair(s) of the blown gasket in full.

  Business response

  10/03/2023

  Yes, I will need some more time. Thank you!

  Customer response

  10/03/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20592187

  
  I am rejecting this response because: Warranty asserts that the blown head gasket is consequential due to a leaky coolant hose that lead to the engine overheating. My vehicle never overheated. When Land Rovers experts disassembled the engine, nothing in it indicated the engine overheated. Per Matthew Moritz, the Service Director for Land Rover, below is the warpage measurements taken from my vehicle and attached to my file is the specification for warpage from the JLR workshop manual.  Per Matthew Moritz, the Service Director at Land Rover and the Service experts, my vehicles engine blocks and heads are well within the warpage spec, and only requires head gasket replacement. Land Rovers service experts concluded that the blown head gasket was not consequential and that the engines heads and engine block showed no indication of an engine that overheated, but was the result of an unfortunate mechanical failure. I have documentation for this. The Land Rover dealer’s service is still in possession of my vehicle with the engine which has been disassembled for nearly 7 weeks. As per my warranty contract, I am humbly requesting that the warranty company, named, Renascent Protection Services cover the repair(s) of the blown gasket in full. Thank you. 
  
  .004" block, .001: head            right side
  .005" block,  .001"head             left side
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  ********* ***** Iii

  Business response

  10/04/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ********* 
  ***** III, Complaint ID BBB-20592187, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on October 2, 2023. 
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ********* ***** III’s 
  file, the third-party inspection report determined that the engine block was warped. This warping was 
  determined to be due to operation of the vehicle until it overheated. The engine block would not warp under 
  normal temperatures, thus, operation while in an overheated state must have occurred. Mr. ***** agreed on 
  a telephone call with RPS that he operated the vehicle with a known leak in the coolant system. The 
  inspection also stated that the head gasket was damaged, allowing coolant to leak. The warping of the engine 
  block damaged the head gasket, causing the leak, which led to overheating of the vehicle. Continued 
  operation of the vehicle with a known like, resulting in overheating that warped the engine block, created a 
  breakdown that is excluded from coverage. Failure to protect the vehicle from further damage when a 
  mechanical breakdown has occurred creates an exclusion from coverage for the resulting damage. The 
  denial of the claim was done following the terms of the contract and was appropriate. 
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ssingh@rps-tpa.com

  Customer response

  10/09/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20592187
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The conclusion listed in the RPS letter and in the Inspection Report, that my vehicle overheated consequential of a leaky hose is purely speculation.  It is also unsupported by the evident condition and measurement specs of the engine block and heads reported by the experts and set forth in Land Rovers manufacturers workshop manual. Warranty Inspectors and Adjusters are not Mechanical Experts, and in this case most certainly not expert mechanics of Land Rover vehicles. Land Rover engineers have created measurement thresholds for their own vehicles just as other auto engineers and manufacturers have. These standards should be upheld and not left up to the opinion of inspectors who aren’t mechanical experts just so they can deny a legitimate warranty claim. Land Rovers engineers has concluded measurement specs for warpage allowed for this vehicle. I imagine that this is so that even in a case that an engine overheats, it would have to reach a specific high temperature in order for it to blow a head gasket. A balloon doesn’t bust just because you blew it up. It busts when you supersede the balloons air capacity. The measurements for the engine block on my vehicle are evident and conclusive. Even if unbeknownst to me, the car within its life span overheated at some point, it most certainly did not overheat enough to blow a head gasket. We know this to be true because the measurements are within spec. In other words, a head gasket doesn’t blow in a car every time a car overheats. It only blows when the temperature heats up to a point that caused the warpage to go outside of the manufacturers warpage spec, hence blowing a head gasket. The engineers and experts decided this, not Inspectors.  The measurements on the engine block on my vehicle by Land Rovers experts suggest that the head gasket blew, not because of the engine overheated at all, but from an unfortunate mechanical failure.
  Contrary to what is alleged in RPS’s letter, I never admitted continuously driving my vehicle while knowing for sure it was leaking. That is false.  When I discovered that the coolant hose was leaking, I contacted Range Rover for service. I do not accept RPS’s response. This matter is not resolved. I assert that RPS is liable for the repair in this matter. I am asking that the denial of my claim be rescinded and that the full cost of the repair of my vehicle be paid by RPS per the contract.
  
  Regards,
  
  ********* ***** Iii

• Initial Complaint

  09/09/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Called my card warranty company August 29th and was told the part was covered. After they called the repair shop they said it wasn’t covered. And now coincidentally have no phone record of me calling and are refusing to honour their mistake by telling me they would cover the cost to repair my car.

  Business response

  09/22/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ********
  *****, Complaint ID BBB-20580652, received by Renascent Protection Solutions on September 19, 2023.
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******** *****’s file,
  the component forming the basis for the claim, the catalytic converter, is not a covered part under Ms. *****’s
  contract. Article V, Section B states that exhaust systems and emission components are explicitly not covered
  and thus excluded from coverage. Ms. ***** is mistaken in that RPS does have on file telephone calls of
  Ms. ***** contacting RPS. RPS does not have any employees working in Tennessee, thus it is possible Ms.
  ***** called the wrong company on at least that occasion.
  The denial of Ms. *****’s claim for replacement of the catalytic converter, an excluded component, was
  appropriate.
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ssingh@rps-tpa.com.

  Customer response

  10/03/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20580652
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 
  I had been in contact with the IT department and they did infact find the phone call (as proof of phone call we submitted the screenshot of your companies phone number) The employee stated to me that the converter was infact covered. You’re passing the buck and trying to get out of responsibility  

  Regards,
  
  ******** *****

  Business response

  10/10/2023

  This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of ******** *****, Complaint ID BBB-20580652, received by Renascent Protection Solutions on October 4, 2023.
  
  
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******** *****’s file, Ms. ***** is again mistaken and misstating the facts in this matter. As stated RPS does have on file telephone calls of Ms. ***** contacting RPS. Those calls have been pulled and reviewed. At no time was a statement made by an RPS employee that a component that is not covered under the contract was covered for her claim. Further, also as stated, RPS does not have any employees working in Tennessee, thus it is possible Ms. ***** called the wrong company on at least that occasion. We cannot comment on that interaction if it occurred.
  
  
  Again, the component forming the basis for the claim, the catalytic converter, is not a covered part under Ms. *****’s contract. Article V, Section B states that exhaust systems and emission components are explicitly not covered and thus excluded from coverage. Any other fact is irrelevant. The stated component is not covered under the explicit terms of the contract, it simply could not be clearer. The denial of Ms. *****’s claim for replacement of the catalytic converter, an excluded component, was appropriate.
  
  
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ssingh@rps-tpa.com. 

• Initial Complaint

  08/30/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My then-partner purchased an Ultimate Protection Package for her 2017 Honda Pilot, offered by Tricor Automotive and administrated by Renascent Protection Solutions. The contract states that: The contract holder must authorize diagnostics before a claim is sent to the insurer. Should the repair be covered, the diagnostics will also be covered. We've been dawdling around for over 3 months trying to get a repair done as the SUV is deemed unsafe as the airbags will not deploy due to an issue with cables/harnesses. We have been told 3 weeks ago that we would have to pay, out of pocked, roughly 1500$ for diagnostics, by the dealership as Renascent would not approve the diagnostics due to the fact that they are "not verifiable" hours. As a consumer we honestly couldn't care less if the hours are verifiable or not: I wasted 3 days of work, UNPAID, which amounts to over a 1000$ in un-earned salary. The contract states clearly that the diagnostics are to be covered. I don't care how it gets done, abide by the contract otherwise there will be a lawsuit under Canadian law which states that insurers MUST ACT IN GOOD FAITH, which I am most definitely not seeing right now. The contract number is TVS0027995, under the name ******* *********. I am the one dealing with this situation as I am fully bilingual and recommended she buy the warranty, which right now I am regretting.

  Business response

  09/25/2023

  `This response is written with regard to the Better Business Bureau follow-up to the complaint of *******
  *********, Complaint ID BBB-20543239, received by Renascent Protection Solutions, LLC on September
  14, 2023.
  Thank you for your patience while we further investigated this matter. Upon review of ******* ********** file,
  this matter relates to extended diagnosis work done on the covered vehicle. It is noted that RPS paid more
  than was required under the terms of the contract for diagnosis work done by the dealership. The required
  coverage was roughly 1.5 hours and RPS paid roughly 3.3 hours. It is our understanding that Mr. Desfosse
  is working this matter out with the dealership that performed the repairs.
  Should you require additional information, please feel free to contact me at ssingh@rps-tpa.com.

  Customer response

  09/26/2023

  [If you do not say why you are rejecting the company's response, BBB must close your complaint.] 
  
  Complaint: 20543239
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 

  while trying to work out the issue with the dealership, they have referred me back to the insurer, as 3.5 is the diagnostic that was requested by the insurer, in addition to the initial 4.0. Had the insurer not requested that diagnostic with Honda Techline, then most if not all of the diagnosis would have been covered.

  Further to that, I was informed by the dealership that the insurer was going by an OP code that covered 6.1H for a repair that requires the removal of the steering column, which the dealership estimates is 12h total work. How can there be such a massive discrepancy between an OP code and actual work? 

  The coverage is advertised as comprehensive and exclusionary. Nowhere does it state that the diagnosis is not fully covered (no exclusion stated to this effect) and while the OP code only covers 6.1, I need an explanation as to why there is a discrepancy as massive as there is.

  
  Regards,
  
  ******* *********

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩