Originally Posted by LogicNow
Seems like these are a rip-off to me. I pay today, and then have to fight later.
From the Lifetime contract, under excluded items. Since the engineer already stated the vehicle is designed for 150,000 miles, after that mileage this contract is over in the eye's of the law with the court.
After reading the contract, that was not easy to get (I used a dummy e-mail), I can't see buying. The ROI is very poor.
As for the one that stated how do the actuaries approve this, easy read the contract, it basically covers NOTHING. Design defects and normal wear allow them to refuse coverage.
Wow, Debating is enjoyable, but Unlike a ScreenName, "logic" wasn't applied on comments. Since you've made an attempt to BELITTLE "the one that stated" and since that is "me"... then I'm obligated to provide a clarification reply due to your misunderstandings.
First for clarification, I was sharing my observations & personal opinion and concluded with my intentions. I wasn't selling, advertising or forcing a payment to be made. Thus, no legal advise and the interpretation of the value of the service contract was up to the individual.
The following does not represent a legal statement, nor provide legal advice, nor provides legal interpretation of the legality of service contract; it is my opinion & observations.
With that stated, let's examine your statements. In my reading & humble understanding; your comments were "suggested" as well researched and verified.
The comment concerning the item: Sample Contract (maxcare.pdf).
You reported that it was "not easy to get" & used a dummy email to obtain.
Really, Are you serious? - the sample contract is a direct link off the ChrylserWarranty web site and DOES NOT require an email address.
Very easy to obtain and I will clarify; I downloaded and reviewed prior to my shared comments within this thread originally, which prompted my excitement of possible value, aka: ROI.
Comment of Engineer and 150K miles as Life of Vehicle and how that relates to this contract. You've indicated one must read to clarify, which is true; but understanding what you read is critical too! Did you happen to notice how the above Eng & 150K Lifespan is NOT indicated on the sample contract? This is because the Engineering lifespan is not associated to this contract. This is NOT a Warranty, it's a Service Contract, indicating a separation from warranty in repairs & legal.
In the FIRST paragraph of Document:
"A SERVICE CONTRACT: This Plan is a service contract between you and us. It protects you against major repair bills should a component covered by the Plan fail in normal use. This Plan is not part of the vehicles’ factory warranty. We are solely responsible (liable) for fulfillment of the provisions of the Plan."
This paragraph basically states you're purchasing a product that will provide service separate from the warranty and will follow the guidelines within it's own "Plan Terms". Not Warranty, and nothing concerning lifespan of "Plan" is limited to 150K miles. In essence, you're purchasing a instrument to transfer "risk" via the "plan" similar to an insurance policy. Speaking of which, can you insure a 20 year old car... if the Engineered Lifespan was the determining factor, you'd be wasting your money!
Now, to help you find the "gotcha" in the Service Contract via Reading the Document. It's the value of the vehicle at time of service reported by the NADA guide. It's the BOLD section within the 2nd Paragraph because they must be trying to conceal it!
Second "gotcha" is a possible repair with remanufactured parts. NOT Used, but remanufactured. Although I don't think bearings, rings, seals, etc will be a debating point with Service Manager.
"IMPORTANT! The maximum reimbursable amount should a covered component fail will be THE TOTAL COST OF THE REPAIRS, PER VISIT, LESS THE DEDUCTIBLE, OR THE CASH VALUE OF THE VEHICLE WHICHEVER IS LESS!"
To assist in understanding this statement: If you're vehicle is worth $18K, then have "multiple items" repaired at 1 visit to limit your cost to a single $100 payment (assuming $100 deductible purchased). If your vehicle is worth $5K, and you need a transmission repair / rebuild / replacement, then only request the "1 repair" to keep "Total Cost" of visit below Vehicle cost. Yes, eventually your value will be less than a major repair and the "Plan" won't cover the repair. Then don't request it to cover it, only apply it to repairs less than value of old worn out 14 yr old vehicle.
Under What's NOT Covered, you quoted the
"Loss of use of the vehicle, loss of time, inconvenience, commercial loss, or any incidental or consequential
In simple terms, this states that the "Plan" is not going to cover Loss of Use or your time without vehicle. The "Plan" covers the vehicle repair, not your life style or value you place on your time. Although; the MaxCare does cover many of these reimbursements for a stated number of years.
Your strongest indication of poor ROI was the 2nd Item within the Not Covered Section.
"Repairs required as a result of other than a manufacturing defect (such as a design defect or normal wear)".
This enters the understanding of grammar and writing instruments covering clarification of possible misunderstandings.
Reference of Grammar & Writting < www.edufind.com/english/punctuation/brackets.cfm
"Round brackets - ( ) -, or 'parentheses' are used in a similar way to commas when we want to add further explanation, an afterthought, or comment that is to do with our main line of thought but distinct from it."
This indicates that parentheses are to clarify the leading verbaige "manufacturing defect". Meaning Manufacturing defect "INCLUDES" design defect & normal wear.
Your Understanding would appear similar to the following:
Repairs required as a result of other failures (such as a design defect or normal wear) not a manufacturing defect.
Hoped that helped clarify the Service Contract and the Lifetime Option.
With refreshed understanding, the ROI on an Ownership over 7 years or over the 100K mile powertrain can quickly return the purchase price and continue to provide substantial savings.