The Exotic Warranty Company

I wasn't going to say anything, but it seems the response was a real "FU" one that didn't seem to address the issues.

First, I don't see that there is any defaming things posted. Defamation is "The act of damaging a person's reputation by making untrue statements", but I am not sure what Noah has posted that is being said to be untrue.

Seems the is a disagreement over the TCU... fair enough. What about the manifold issue? Does the contract indeed state that "manifolds" are covered? If so, why would such a claim not be paid? Does it state that rentals are not covered? If not, i don't see how coverage could be denied because of that. Regarding the dispute procedure, he says he tried but never got the form, which if what he said about being approved and not receiving checks is the case, is believable.

The original post was pretty factual, and the response IMO dodged the facts presented and instead seemed more of a return fire post instead of addressing the issues. If Noah submitted claims for pre-existing conditions which were denied, and was mistaken about the name of the woman who worked there, how does that bear on the other problems he's had? Whats the deal with coverage being denied about the manifolds? What about the starter? Does it say rentals are not covered in the contract?

I am sure the shop that dealt with the warranty company can be cross-referenced and will say whether they were told by the warranty company that a check was forthcoming. If so, it would lead me to think Noah's post is correct.

 

yep, based upon both of their posts, i wouldn't do biz with EWC.

 

I also filed a claim on behalf of a client and it was rejected with little explanation. It was the second for the same car. The first was over a manifold also interestingly enough. The same thing was said, that it did not include exhaust manifolds even though the warranty document states "Manifolds" plural and no further description or limitation is made.


noahlh, I have sent you a PM.

 

Other people's experiences aren't relevant. The fundamental question is does the contract specify that the car cannot be used as a rental.

If not, the resolution of this dispute is clear. Whatever The Exotic Warranty Company's unspecified policy may be makes no difference. If you sign a contract manifesting terms in writing, you are bound to the reasonable interpretation of that agreement. Your unexpressed policies are wholly irrelevant.

In addition, I draw your attention to a further rule: if the form giver - The Exotic Warranty Company - knows or has reason to know that the form taker wouldn’t expect a particular kind of clause, that clause won’t be enforceable. Here, supposedly, the contract was made out to a rental company. The Exotic Warranty Company thus has every reason to expect that the form taker would not accept the contract terms had he understood them to mean that rental cars would not get coverage. Under this rule, EVEN IF you read the term of barring coverage to rental cars into the contract (which, unless it is actually written there, you almost assuredly cannot) that term still would not be legally enforceable.

 

I respectully disagree. If there is a pattern of deceit or honesty on the insurer's part, I'd find that information highly relavent. More data points, please.


Disclaimer: I don't know either party invoved.

 

If the warranty does not cover rentals then perhaps EWC should refund the money paid for the warranty?

 

The copy of the agreement I have makes no such exclusions.

 

yeah, it kind sucks when you have a biz for which you price your product based in large part upon your operating costs + desired profit only to find your operating costs are not what you planned because one of your vendors for some of your operating cost is playing games with your money.

 

Well it sounds like the only way this will be settled is in court.

 

yep, where both parties will spend well in excess of their claims in atty and depo fees alone.

 

If the contract does not cover warranties for rental cars (and, as I have explained, it takes more than EWC simply declaring a policy of not covering rental cars), then Noah has suffered not only the loss of his insurance premiums but also the loss of the coverage on all his repairs that would have been covered by another insurance company but for his reliance on his contract with EWC. Restitution would thus be those damages and not a refund of his premiums.

 

Is it just me or does $2,950 not sound like a high enough premium to cover a 360? It doesn't take much to be wrong to generate a $3,000 tab with these sophisticated cars - and there isn't a pool of tens of thousands cars to mitigate the potential losses.

 

Note: nothing I write in this thread should be construed as legal advice or as councel from an attorney.

 

The only thing insurance companies understand is litigation. Get counsel.
If only a small percentage is valid of what you are claiming, the inquiry is worth it. Go to an established consumer law attorney.


I would like to hear all the favorable consumer stories...........

MM

I am not an attorney nor is this legal advice.

 

for only a year? they aren't that big a POS that $3k/yr is too low are they?

 

LoL.
Sounds like it means i am not paying shiet and you can sue us.

 

nice to finally meet you saturday mark!

 

If this pdf represents the contract in it's entirety, and your story is more or less true, then it appears to me that you have a case. But I suggest you get legal help, because I'm not a licensed attorney.

As to when a legitimate dispute arose between you and the insurer (regarding the 10 day "dispute deadline" in the contract) - hard to say, because you claim an employee representative of the company kept insisting that you were going to be paid, and thus there was no official dispute over a claim.

 

On the subject of the car being a rental car -- If we had known the car was a rental car, a policy would not have been issued on it. We never stated that coverage was denied for anything because it was a rental. However, since the policy was put in place and nothing excludes rental cars from being covered, this will not affect the way claims are paid on the vehicle.

The upgrades section where rental was unchecked is for coverage of a rental car while your vehicle is being repaired, it has nothing to do with a rental car company nor the use of the covered vehicle.

A few have said my responses were a "FU" to Noah. My response stated facts concerning the misinformation Noah is giving. Quoting employees that hadnt even worked here yet, not disclosing pre-existing information in claims, stating we are a fraudulent company, not following our dispute rules, threatening litigation and never following through, etc... When someone posts on a public forum a thread of lies, I have no option to respond with a rebuttal.

Noah -- I feel that my company has done nothing wrong. I stand by my decision as I've been involved personally with nearly everything on this contract. We are not a fraudulent company and we do not sell bad products. You are clearly not impressed with what you bought, so lets settle this in a public forum if you so choose. Litigation will cost both of us 5x more than the contract was for. Do you want a refund on the contract? Tell me so here in the forum and this case will be closed. This is no more than a good faith gesture to resolve this problem. I'll leave this offer open to you until the end of the day as I'm pretty certain that you're monitoring this thread actively. In exchange we will sign a mutual release, delete this thread, and we will call it a day and go home resolved. I never want it be thought that we didnt try to resolve our differences on this contract, as you know we have tried in the past.

As always, anyone who has questions or comments or concerns can reach me at 888-748-9666 x103 anytime during the day.

-Ben

 

I'm not going to dispute on this. But when I see this in Mr Ben Evans's public profile on F-chat something tells me : watch out...
Occupation:
I sell invisible paper.
Guido

 

NOT TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY NOAH AND WISH YOU THE BEST LUCK IN FINDING YOUR PROBLEMS POSITIVE..BUT TAKE A LOOK AT BENS PROFILE OCCUPATION:


Birthday:
October 19, 1979
Full Name:
Ben Evans
Location:
Sarasota, FL
Homepage:
http://www.slantback.com/
Personal Ferraris:
No F-Cars!
Wanted Cars:
None
Other Cars Owned:
2001 Lamborghini Diablo 6.0
Previous Cars Owned:
Long list.....
Interests:
USPSA Competitor, Certified Coins
Occupation:
I sell invisible paper......... SELLS INVISIBLE PAPER??????

 

Noah, is it possible you're quoting another person besides the employee Ben claims to have started working there after the dates you specified?

Ben, that's a good gesture of you to offer to return his money, but if he really did have to go through all of the trouble he's described, then it's too bad he had to go public on Fchat to get anything from your company resolved.

 

Ben,

I purchased a worthless contract from your company and have an ongoing investigation with both State of Alabama and Florida into your practices. I am also interested in getting a refund and forgetting that I ever dealt with you company and claims service. Please PM me and I will send you my contact information.

Matt