My elderly, post-retirement parents approached the Mr. Bennis the owner of the Quality Motors Inc. dealership on May 10, 2014 with the intention to preview vehicles for sale. At the time of their visit the salesperson and manager Mr. Bennis convinced them and me to purchase a Buick Rendezvous which appeared to be in good condition. Along with purchasing the vehicle they were persuaded to purchase an extended warranty costing $1349 for a three year term from Secured Capital Management which covered all major items and ostensibly provided for a $25.00 per day car rental. We later discovered the car rental was based on the hours of labor actually performed on the vehicle not on the duration it was at the shop or not operable. Within a week of the purchase of the car and warranty we noticed that when travelling at 65 mph and braking the vehicle shuddered violently. Not knowing the cause of the shuddering we took the vehicle to the GMC/Buick dealership at Southwest Freeway where we discovered the pinion and assembly rack needed to be replaced. Since the warranty limited labor charges to $75 per hour we took the vehicle to a Service Station closer to home for repairs on May 30, 2014. After numerous calls and promises regarding the authorization of the claim we were informed 5 days later that an inspector/Adjustor would need to see the vehicle. This was duly done and a report filed. Since the repair fell within the policy limits Secured Capital Management fraudulently chose to deny the claim stating the repairs constituted a pre-existing condition. Clearly when a 2006 vehicle is sold and a warranty is purchased with it the warranty is purchased with a view that the consumer will be afforded some kind of protection in the event of a major problem arising. All repairs to older vehicles can to some extent be considered pre-existing conditions so my question is why sell a warranty on an older vehicle if you have no intention of honoring the warranty.
In my opinion both the dealer who sold the vehicle and warranty as well as Secured Captal Management (SCM) engaged in fraudulent and deceptive trade practices. We contend that SCM engaged in fraudulent and deceptive trade practices when they provided a warranty on a used vehicle which they had no intention of honoring.
My parents who are senior citizens are victims of fraud and suffered financial loss amounting to $7000.00 plus an additional $135.00 paid to GMC Buick where the car was taken for an assessment. All these actions occurred within 2 weeks of purchase of the vehicle.
The Penn Warranty Corporation Reviews
My elderly, post-retirement parents approached the Mr. Bennis the owner of the Quality Motors Inc. dealership on May 10, 2014 with the intention to preview vehicles for sale. At the time of their visit the salesperson and manager Mr. Bennis convinced them and me to purchase a Buick Rendezvous which appeared to be in good condition. Along with purchasing the vehicle they were persuaded to purchase an extended warranty costing $1349 for a three year term from Secured Capital Management which covered all major items and ostensibly provided for a $25.00 per day car rental. We later discovered the car rental was based on the hours of labor actually performed on the vehicle not on the duration it was at the shop or not operable. Within a week of the purchase of the car and warranty we noticed that when travelling at 65 mph and braking the vehicle shuddered violently. Not knowing the cause of the shuddering we took the vehicle to the GMC/Buick dealership at Southwest Freeway where we discovered the pinion and assembly rack needed to be replaced. Since the warranty limited labor charges to $75 per hour we took the vehicle to a Service Station closer to home for repairs on May 30, 2014. After numerous calls and promises regarding the authorization of the claim we were informed 5 days later that an inspector/Adjustor would need to see the vehicle. This was duly done and a report filed. Since the repair fell within the policy limits Secured Capital Management fraudulently chose to deny the claim stating the repairs constituted a pre-existing condition. Clearly when a 2006 vehicle is sold and a warranty is purchased with it the warranty is purchased with a view that the consumer will be afforded some kind of protection in the event of a major problem arising. All repairs to older vehicles can to some extent be considered pre-existing conditions so my question is why sell a warranty on an older vehicle if you have no intention of honoring the warranty.
In my opinion both the dealer who sold the vehicle and warranty as well as Secured Captal Management (SCM) engaged in fraudulent and deceptive trade practices. We contend that SCM engaged in fraudulent and deceptive trade practices when they provided a warranty on a used vehicle which they had no intention of honoring.
My parents who are senior citizens are victims of fraud and suffered financial loss amounting to $7000.00 plus an additional $135.00 paid to GMC Buick where the car was taken for an assessment. All these actions occurred within 2 weeks of purchase of the vehicle.