When I first heard about WG's problem, I contacted Edmund's, since that is where I heard about WG in the first place. Here is there response. -----Original Message----- From: Customer Support [mailto:CS2003@edmunds.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:03 PM Subject: RE: warranties
Per Warranty Gold, they are not in Chapter 11. We've been told that Warranty Gold is perfectly Ok. The administration company that handled Warranty Gold's book of business seems to be in liquidation, however this does not directly affect Warranty Gold as an entity. They have a new administrator and are finalizing the details right now. I suggest you contact Warranty Gold directly and discuss your claim options.
Maybe Edmunds shares some of the blame as well.
Thank you for using Edmunds.
-----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:03 AM To: Customer Support Cc: Gutwirth, Joseph; Roads, John Subject: warranties
subject: warranties errormessage: I have a claim from my warrantygold warranty. My dealer called to get an authorization number, he was told they were not paying anymore claims and might be in Chapter 11. Since they are on your site, maybe someone from your company should investigate. techproblem: no tool: Select the Problem Area urlproblem: browser: operatingSystem: partner: specific_car:
I don't understand how WG says they are OK - which is the reason my dispute has been dismissed! How are they getting away with this? There are public records from the bankruptcy - and the email from WG - that states they are in bankruptcy court trying to get our contracts legally cancelled so they can keep our money and not be responsible. How are they getting away with claiming they are fine, contracts are valid, blah blah, when they ARE IN BREECH of contract and NOT paying claims? And why are public records being ignored? It is ridiculous that a company can say ANYTHING and that is taken as proof. And with WG, they twist the words to make it sound better: Yes, contracts are still currently "VALID" - but that does not change the fact they are not honoring these contracts.
I am totally disgusted with this whole matter! And for Edmunds to say that there is nothing wrong with WG is ludicrous!!!! I bought my policies because I saw them here at Edmunds! Well, I do have some happy news. My credit card company has credited my account in full for the price I paid WG. As soon as they read all the info I down loaded from the WG web site they refunded everything. When I started the complaint the girl first asked what it was about. All I had to mention was WG. She already knew.
WG can say they are ok NOW, just not 6 months ago. This is like an alcoholic saying he's not alcoholic anymore. I used to drink too much, but now I'm clean. It's the same kind of thinking. The alcoholic is still an alcoholic, WG is still WG. People who buy new WG policies had better hope WG doesn't fall off the wagon again.
Two days after WG decided to ditch their loyal customers and get a new administrator for their new customers. Edmunds still advertised for WG. WG didn't communicate their problems to their customers until months later, and only in email form. I think WG acted unconscionable and unethical. Kammerman, WG's CEO should be put in jail along with Kenneth Lay. Ednumnds should have investigated further the deceptive practices of one of their advertisers.
I am trying to add another discussion to the warranties discussion but it only allows me to put the discussion in the news and view section. How do I add a new discussion to the warranties section or can KCram or carman move the discussion to this site? The discussion is entitled "Warranties backed by a Risk Retention Group" which is currently in the news and views town hall section. It should be placed in here and is very germane to the topic at hand.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
This came from another board just posted by Angellove, we all need to read it......
Warranties Backed by a Risk Retention Group by angellove Jan 13, 2004 (12:22 pm)
On June 10, 2003 I wrote in the "Warranty Gold" Claims discussion how the failure of National Warranty Risk Retention Group would affect the Warranty Gold customers (message #639 and #642). At that time respondents thought my logic was flawed. As it turns out I was correct.
Now I am writing to you about 2 other warranty companies that are backed by Risk Retention Groups. As we have learned from the Warranty Gold/National Warranty RRG debacle the damage to the consumer is immense. What we don't need are more people to be victmiized as the Warranty Gold/National Warranty customers were.
1. Interstate National Dealer Services (INDS) - A.M. Best issued a press release on December 23rd downgrading National Service Contract RRG from A- (excellent) to B++ (very good)with the rating still under review with negative implications. In case you don't know National Service Contract, RRG is majority owned by Interstate National Dealer Services (INDS). I can remember all too well how quickly National Warranty fell from grace as soon as AM Best dowgraded them.
2. First Automotive Service Corp - aka First Automotive Insurance RRG. On January 12, 2004 the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation issued a press release on the following:
"The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) has obtained a permanent injunction ordering a New Mexico service contract provider to stop offering or selling extended warranties for automobiles in Texas for which it lacks proof of adequate financial security.
Judge Suzanne Covington of the 201st District Court in Austin Monday ordered First Automotive Service Corp. (FASC) of Albuquerque to stop providing, offering, advertising, selling or marketing service contracts unless it can show that the policies will be properly backed".
If you remember First Automotive Service Corp is the new administrator for Warranty Gold!!
I only hope and pray that these two companies don't continue to slide like National Warranty did. What we don't need is more consumers facing the same problems we all did since the National Warranty failure.
It's been awhile since I've checked in. If you have a paper trail that shows dates and you can show your CC company that their bumbling and inaction pushed you into the bankruptcy time - I'd keep fighting them and go as high as you have to. That really stinks. I have to say that GM card seemed to handle it reasonably fast.
This whole thing has become a lesson in credit card companies too I guess. I don't think our situations here differ too much - we were all in the same boat with same set of circumstances. It's amazing that the CC companies each end up with different results.
If your dispute is processed before the bankruptcy, you should be ok. GM card has backed me up. You can call them and check. I did this on the advice of others here and GM card said they did get a rebuttal from WG but said they rejected it. What I liked hearing is that GM card said WG sent them a copy of the contract ("same stuff you sent" is what they said) and I guess they told WG and their bank "so what, that's exactly what we looked at to determine you are wrong here".
I'm still holding my breath a bit though. You never know. I'm still a "little guy". I would not be surprised if WG invests more in lawyer fees than my contract was worth to screw me back somehow.
I am still waiting on the newest ruling from my CC. They just keep trying to wear me down, but haven't figured out the more they dismiss me, the angrier I get to fight.
My dispute began before the bankruptcy and should have been resolved before it as well, but due to their not sending me WG's rebuttal, it has dragged on this long. Am I crazy to think they did this deliberately and wanted me to miss the deadline? Either I am nuts or they are incompetent considering I spoke to someone TWICE before finally receiving it a few days before the dispute would be closed.
All I want is for the truth to be told and an objective decision. Where your company rejected WG's rebuttal, mine took it as gospel truth and that irks the heck out of me since WG did not answer a simple question like: Will you pay for this customer's "covered" repair with the customer paying zero deductible, and honor the so-called "valid" contract that you sold? WG just states they are STILL in business - and submits old documents with the whining about National Warranty and how they are "doing everything in their power to honor contracts" neglecting to mention they are NOT honoring contracts, not paying for repairs, and importantly, filing bankruptcy to get contracts declared invalid. And my CC BUYS whatever WG tell them which says to me they simply do not care. My documentation could not have been seriously considered in this decision and considering how it takes weeks for them to do anything, it would have been impossible for them to consider my numerous documents AND have a ruling in the space of a few days. Wouldn't surprise me if they dropped the ball again, didn't respond in time, and WG won this by default. And I let them know dismissing my dispute is unacceptable. So they shut me up by looking into it again.
Do you know anything about arbitration? My CC is trying to get to believe that THEY didn't dismiss me, but Mastercard did based on the WG documents. But then I was told it didn't go to arbitration...so wouldn't that mean my CC decided not to continue? It's hard to get straight answers from my CC cause they are too focused on repeating "There's nothing further we can do..." If anyone knows about arbitration specifics, I'd appreciate your explaining it to me.
However, I'd get all the facts lined up and share them with someone higher-up at the cc company. I'd get the "when you sent in the dispute date" - factor in the standard amount of time they typically allow to process a dispute (even mine was kind of long - many weeks, but if I remember right it was within 6 weeks or so).
If you can show that they took an extended time to process it and it cost you the ultimate opportunity to right yourself then you have something to keep hitting them with. Also, their negligence to contact you regarding WG's rebuttal is crazy. I'd ask what their policy is on that - again time frames are important too.
I'll tell you this, GM card specifically said that they'd contact me if WG issued a rebuttal so that I could respond with more information if needed. They never did contact me about the rebuttal, but that's because they did not accept it.
Often times the first line of people you deal with on the phone don't have much/any power to deal with a case like yours. You need to get to the upper management. Start by asking to talk to their boss, and probably that person's boss as well.
The most you can hope for is to present a clear case with facts that are easy to see and follow and ask someone in corporate that has some power to do something about it. I think it would help if you can show that they did not act in accordance with their policy or time frames.
Maybe we need another thread on how to deal with the CC companies in addition to WG. However with the bankruptcy, this may be a moot point with the CC companies now.
Has anyone tried filing a claim with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Texas? I was reading the info. on the Warranty Gold site & began filing a claim with the Court in hopes that I would someday be reimbursed for the $1000+ I am out.
Would completing the forms be a complete waste of my time?
and get them in before new deadline. This is probably your last recourse if credit card company won't back you up on refund or use the excuse your beyond dispute time frame allowed, that's the most common "out" given by credit card companies to justify doing nothing for you !
and as Discover Card says, "thank you and have a nice day"
Did anybody else notice on the front page of their website, they had a testimonial from somebody who purchased a warranty that was no longer being offered? Isn't that false and misleading? I can bet that person is NOT a happy customer. This has been changed recently.
Not only am I out the warranty cost. I'm out any repairs. I had planned to keep my car till the warranty expired. Now I'm out the cost of replacing my car earlier as well.
Didn't WG say they had ample protection in a stash for claims? Was that deceptive? They made us believe they were safe to do business with. They lied. They deceived us all. Let me know who to sue.
Anybody purchasing a warranty gold contract after June 2003 is a fool. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold.
Welcome aboard!!! All of your questions are answered in your contract, but don't waste your time sue'ing them. They're in chapter 11 anyway. I happenned to notice WG was listed as a "featured partner" on a popular website. After I contacted the website owners, they did pull them from their list of featured partners. But I did have to "knock them upside the head" and spell things out to them.
Yea, I sent them another "testomonial" today. Anyone notice that the last one posted was back in February of 2003 ! Goes to show how often they update them, of course what I sent wasn't fit to print but at least I vented and caused someone on the other end a little stress ! Heck someone has to read it probably the minimum wage earner they highered to do the job, bet there's a high turnover rate in that department ! LOL
For Immediate Release Contact: Patrick Shaughnessy DATE: January 15, 2004 512-463-3208
WARRANTY GOLD SURRENDERS ITS LICENSE TO TDLR Company Will No Longer to Able to Operate As Service Contract Provider in Texas
AUSTIN - Warranty Gold, a service contract provider in Austin that sold vehicle warranties over the internet, surrendered its license Thursday to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR).
By relinquishing its license, Warranty Gold forfeits its ability to act as a service contract provider to consumers in Texas. The company still will be able to market warranties on behalf of other licensed providers.
Although it has surrendered its license, the action does not relieve Warranty Gold of its responsibility to service contracts it is already obligated under.
Warranty Gold has been a TDLR-licensed service contract provider since 2000. Until June, contracts the company sold named National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group (NWIG) as the entity that provided the financial security required under Texas law and as the company that would pay for any contract warranty work. On June 7, however, NWIG declared bankruptcy.
Warranty Gold also filed for bankruptcy in federal bankruptcy court in Austin on November 11. In a motion filed in that court, Warranty Gold asked to be relieved of its responsibility for contracts for which NWIG provided financial security. TDLR encourages all consumers who bought a Warranty Gold policy prior to June 7 to file a claim against the company’s assets in bankruptcy court.
Most service contracts Warranty Gold has sold since June actually were issued by another licensed service contract provider, First Automotive Service Corp. (FASC) of Albuquerque, N. M., with Warranty Gold serving as an agent for that company. FASC is required by law to honor those contracts.
For Immediate Release Contact: Patrick Shaughnessy DATE: January 12, 2004 512-463-3208
TDLR INJUNCTION HALTS SALE OF UNSECURED VEHICLE WARRANTIES Company Must Provide Financial Assurance Before Selling New Policies
AUSTIN - The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) has obtained a permanent injunction ordering a New Mexico service contract provider to stop offering or selling extended warranties for automobiles in Texas for which it lacks proof of adequate financial security.
Judge Suzanne Covington of the 201st District Court in Austin Monday ordered First Automotive Service Corp. (FASC) of Albuquerque to stop providing, offering, advertising, selling or marketing service contracts unless it can show that the policies will be properly backed.
FASC did not contest the injunction. It was entered as an agreed final judgment.
Under the Texas Service Contract Regulatory Act, companies in Texas that provide service contracts are required to prove before they sell policies that they have sufficient funding to service the contracts they sell and they must maintain adequate security during the terms of those contracts. This can be done through the purchase of reimbursement insurance from a third party.
While investigating Warranty Gold, a licensed service contract provider that declared bankruptcy November 11, 2003, TDLR discovered that policies sold by Warranty Gold since June 2003 named FASC, rather than Warranty Gold, as the company that would actually provide the warranty coverage. FASC, in turn, stated in the policies that reimbursement insurance to cover claims was provided by Dealers Assurance Corp. (DAC) of Columbus, Ohio.
However, DAC has informed TDLR that it never agreed to provide reimbursement insurance and never provided financial backing for the policies.
The injunction prevents FASC from offering or selling any policies that are purportedly backed by DAC. The order does not affect FASC’s ability to sell policies properly secured by other insurers.
Created in 1909 as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, TDLR protects the public welfare and safety and promotes a fair and competitive business environment by regulating twenty diverse industries and programs, including service contract providers, boxing, air conditioning contractors and architectural barriers.
Since WG can't sell contracts, I wonder if that really nice guy J.L. lost his job? I can't say his name or anything bad as Edmund removes my messages.
There is a M. Newman who has a court case against WG. A hearing on Feb 5, 2004 in the Austin bankruptcy court. They have a motion to amend the rejection of pre June 7, 2003 contracts.
I filled out a form for a claim, but doubt it will do any good. They force you into sending it to WG instead of the court for processing. There is a field for claim amount and they (WG) modified the amount I entered prior to sending it to the court. That is really stupid having WG receive the claims and not the court!
I believe the previous two posts only reflect WG doing business to Texas residents and not residents in other states. I know here in Florida WG cannot do business, as well as other states who are well aware of the WG situation.
So they continue to claim they have proper reimbursement insurance when in fact they don't? I can't believe this company is allowed to continue to do business? Also, they show testimonials on the webpage from people with voided warranties. It all seems very deceptive to me still. How is the consumer being protected here? I want to see this company shut down, not protected by courts.
I just got a letter in the mail saying that the "conditional credit" given to me a couple months ago has now become permanent. It took a few letters and a little hassle, but Citi Mastercard came through. I purchased the WG policy in 12/20/01, filed my dispute on 10/8/03, received a conditional credit on 11/20/03 (they dated it back to my 2nd letter on 11/9/03...just before WG filed for Chapter 11...whew!), and finally received the permanent credit on 1/27/04. It took a little elbow grease to get Citi/MC to really take a look at the dispute...plus the timing worked out pretty well...but I finally got most of my money back. I purchased the policy for $1250 and got $900 back. So from 12/01 to 6/03, I paid about $350 for WG's 5 Year Diamond policy. Not a bad deal. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I never filed any claims on the policy. Oh well, hopefully Citi/MC can bring in a few more lawyers to fight WG. Thanks again Mastercard!
Care to share with me your secrets in the argument you put in writing to win this battle with Citi Mastercard? Discover Card is doing absolutely nothing for me and my policies were purchased in Sept/December 2003 ! E-Mail me the info since Edmunds doesnt allow posting here. My e-mail is in my profile. Thanks
Gee, I'd love to know what's in that letter too! I wouldn't be surprised if my CC had some sort of ownership or investment in Warranty Gold with the way my dispute has dragged on for months with them taking WG's side and accepting my contract as "valid" (!?) - or they don't care.
I am expected to fight for my claims against NWIG - as WG would like - and WG (duh) neglected to mention I'd have to Fight a Bankrupt company to be reimbursed as part of their service coverage - in case their "absolutely reliable" Trustee became insolvent, but it seems perfectly logical and reasonable to my CC company who ignore public records and various documentation. How the heck do these companies Investigate a dispute anyway? The argument is Insane and frustrating. But I continue.....
Warranty gold site is down. "System temporarily unavailable due to routine maintenance.
Please Call (512) 382-4700 and speak directly with one of our Warranty Consultants for assistance." Do they close quietly or do they start a completely unrelated new company with a new name, the same owners, location, and staff? I'm betting the latter, this scam has been too damn lucrative.
Seems they will lie all the way out the door. Good Riddence. Rob Phelans Site is reporting that WG has decided to liquidate rather than reorganize.
This is the best possible news really, no one else can get taken by these scum. Lets all learn not to expect something for nothing(or not quite enough, I know I should have known better.)
Show's over, no appearances in court, no letter writing, no recourse. This sucks...
Did you notice that they did NOT list their 1-800 number? If you want to call them, YOU will pay for it.
Seems like this company is going down faster than Howard Dean's campaign.
I know we have all gone between frustration, anger and having some fun at their expense, but fact is, I hoped they would be able to pull this together at the last minute.
The fact that NWIG and WG filed bankruptcy did NOT mean they were out of money. History tells us officers in companies running a scam like this one buy their houses in Palm Beach for cash, stash a few mil $$ in their kids name or put everything in their wife's name and THEN go crying to the courthouse telling the judge how bad things are.
There is a book somewhere that I have read that talks about gaining the whole world but losing your soul. What WAS the name of that book? Oh, yeah, here it is.......
Selected, Want info on new warranty. Message said there were '0' calls b4 me. Next, Message said, due to high volume, please leave number and we'll phone back.
Has anyone found official word of Liquidation? I have not found anything in my searching.
and pressed [1] for new warranty info it prompted me: Press [1] if I have $1500, Press [2] if I don't have $1500.
I pressed [2]. It prompted me: If you have a Major Credit card that would not help you in a Merchant Dispute, Press [3] or if you don't have a credit card, Press [4]. I pressed [4].
After being disconnected, I called back again. This time when asked if I had $1500, I pressed YES [1] It prompted me: If you have a Match, press [5]so I pressed [5]. It prompted me: If I would rather WATCH my money burn, Press [7] for instructions, otherwise, Please Press [8] and remain on the line for the last remaining representative.
Lets hope WG does not simply start up a Brand new company with our money and start this Pyramid all over again giving them year$ before it will collapse again. Hopefully States will individually prevent these types of companies from selling and Credit cards will warn consumers about these "absolutley reliable" companies.
That's the jist of folding a business and starting a new one under a new name, these guys will probably do just that with all the money they raped from everyone of us, old policies as well as new ! Free Enterprise my butt ! and don't ya know WG's site is still down for "maint", I think it's gone actually, good ridence !
Here are a couple excerpts from the letter I sent to Citi Mastercard. I don't know if the legal mumbo jumbo is accurate, but I think it worked. Basically, this was my response to their letter saying that they had no recourse on a charge made more than a year ago.
The 1 Year Policy does not apply to this purchase, since it was for a 5 year service contract that ends in 2006.
Regulation E states that there is a time frame of 120 days after services have been rendered to dispute a charge. Regulation E applies to reason code 59 for MasterCard ((RS1) - Merchant unwilling or unable (e.g., out of business) to render services). We could also file a compliance case under "Obligation to Provide" (see MasterCard International Chargeback Guide, section 7.1.2)
for your information...It seems so ridiculous that we even NEED to research laws/regulations that our Credit Card companies should and ARE fully aware of and have to remind them. Aren't they supposed to be protecting THEIR customer, US? Several dispute letters later, many pages of documented proof, and I still do not think I have convinced Mine that WG isn't providing service LOL - how sad is that? They keep looking for ways to dismiss me and it is aggravating as they are ignoring the fact my 5 year contract lasted a couple of MONTHS and my first claim would NOT be paid as the contract stated. I think they are trying to drive me crazy so I'll give up.
Ask you credit card company to try and contact Warranty Gold. Since they are 'closed', how would they render you the services you paid for in your contract? Try keeping it really simple.
I used the same Reg E provision and language as swagak with Visa.
I told my CC to call and simply ASK ANY rep if what I was saying was true MONTHS ago. They claimed they don't do such things (?) which makes me wonder how they "investigate" if they do at all. They ssaid they simply take MY dispute, submit it, get the rebuttal, I submit my rebuttal to their rebuttal blah blah. And apparently they accepted WG's claim (and I told them THAT is unacceptable) over mine all without even picking up the phone and simply asking a WG rep if anything I said is true such as Would my claim be paid/reimbursed. I know I have been a bit too emotional when explaining my case, but after my first simple letter of dispute,that got me nowhere so I became frustrated. I have also requested explanations from my CC company regarding the way my dispute has been handled and they have still not acknowledged that. What Does this "Reg E" exactly mean - or can I find it online? Thanks.
Google search Regulation E and also credit card Chargebacks. Much of what you find is written for merchant's perspective, but you will locate terminolgy that will sound like you know the rules which ALL credit card companies are to be guidelined by. If you learn what a merchant needs to provide to dispute a chargeback, then you can request this evidence. They will not be able to provide evidence, as they are not providing a service.
Do you have your bank's fax number? I faxed and snail mailed everything I could get my hands on.
I've been doing internet searches, but haven't found anything "official" that WG is actually liquidating.
Remember that attorney "B. Weldon Ponder?" At the end of paragraph 3 in his motion seeking to postpone the Jan 8th contract rejection hearing, he stated something to the effect that delaying the Jan 8th hearing would not cause any problems, especially if WG confirmed that it was liquidating...That would indicate that WG has been working toward liquidation (not reorganization) for at least 6-8 weeks!
If WG really is closing, will it have to re-file with the court under Chapter 7? Does Chapter 7 remove any of the protections of Chapter 11?
While it has not been verified that WG has filed for protection under Chapter 7, the following is a description of this level of bankruptcy:
Chapter 7 Liquidation
Chapter 7 bankruptcy or "straight bankruptcy" is the most popular form of bankruptcy because it allows the debtor to "wipe the slate clean" and start all over. This code is available to individuals, couples, corporations and partnerships. Discharge normally occurs within 4-6 months after filing.
Non-exempt assets will go under the care of a trustee who liquidates them to satisfy creditors in order of their secured interests. Any wages a debtor earns is off limits to creditors who had a vested interest on the date of filing.
This code is generally used by those who lack sufficient income to cover outstanding debts after taking care of basic necessities, and who have no hope of ever repaying their creditors. There are certain obligations that are not dischargeable, for example:
Alimony and child support
Back taxes under 3 years old and student loans
Recently made purchases for substantial amounts
Property executed contracts involving titles or liens
Before considering chapter 7 you should take an inventory of the types of debt owed. This will give you a better idea if filing will give you the relief you seek.
Who should consider chapter 7. * If there is no hope of repaying any of your debts.
* If there are no cosigners involved,
* If court action by creditors is imminent, filing stays all collection proceeding while in court.
Downsides Ruins your credit. If you have a cosigner, they will still be responsible for the debt you discharge. Pay attorneys, court and filing fees upfront.
Alternatives If you can't discharge enough of your debts or have to sacrifice too much property you may want to consider chapter 13 or a credit counseling / debt consolidation repayment plan.
The official creditors committee has been formed. The Committee will only represent the contract holders, not ALL unsecured creditors.
It is made up of 7 contract holders. We have retained an attorney in Austin to represent us in trying to release funds from WG/NWIG.
The old website(you may know which one) will remain active as long as people keep using it. However, the Committee has set up a new one specifically for disseminating information from the Committee to all the contract holders.
We will try to put a link on WGs website to ours.
You can email me for the site.
Currently, there's a limited amount of info there, except for some committee member info. But, as hearings continue, it will be updated.
No legal advice can be given from the Committee to contract holders, though.
How do we contact you for more info. Link from Warranty Gold's website won't work....it's down! I have 2 worthless contracts and 1 worthless credit card company.
I received a letter today from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation in regard to the complaint I filed last year against WG. Basically the letter says that WG is no longer licensed in Texas but they are required to honor existing contracts. They go on to say my case is closed. THEN they discuss the bankruptcy issue. All this is old news to we who have been following WG from Day 1. Glad to see the State of Texas is of no use to its taxpayers.
Comments
-----Original Message-----
From: Customer Support [mailto:CS2003@edmunds.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:03 PM
Subject: RE: warranties
Per Warranty Gold, they are not in Chapter 11. We've been told that
Warranty Gold is perfectly Ok. The administration company that handled
Warranty Gold's book of business seems to be in liquidation, however
this does not directly affect Warranty Gold as an entity. They have a
new administrator and are finalizing the details right now. I suggest
you contact Warranty Gold directly and discuss your claim options.
Maybe Edmunds shares some of the blame as well.
Thank you for using Edmunds.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:03 AM
To: Customer Support
Cc: Gutwirth, Joseph; Roads, John
Subject: warranties
subject: warranties
errormessage: I have a claim from my warrantygold warranty. My dealer
called to get an authorization number, he was told they were not paying
anymore claims and might be in Chapter 11. Since they are on your site,
maybe someone from your company should investigate.
techproblem: no
tool: Select the Problem Area
urlproblem:
browser:
operatingSystem:
partner:
specific_car:
Ray T.
I think WG acted unconscionable and unethical. Kammerman, WG's CEO should be put in jail along with Kenneth Lay. Ednumnds should have investigated further the deceptive practices of one of their advertisers.
We will move the one you started in News & Views here to FWI shortly.
kcram
Host
Smart Shopper and FWI Message Boards
kirstie_h
Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Warranties Backed by a Risk Retention Group by angellove Jan 13, 2004 (12:22 pm)
On June 10, 2003 I wrote in the "Warranty Gold" Claims discussion how the failure of National Warranty Risk Retention Group would affect the Warranty Gold customers (message #639 and #642). At that time respondents thought my logic was flawed. As it turns out I was correct.
Now I am writing to you about 2 other warranty companies that are backed by Risk Retention Groups. As we have learned from the Warranty Gold/National Warranty RRG debacle the damage to the consumer is immense. What we don't need are more people to be victmiized as the Warranty Gold/National Warranty customers were.
1. Interstate National Dealer Services (INDS) - A.M. Best issued a press release on December 23rd downgrading National Service Contract RRG from A- (excellent) to B++ (very good)with the rating still under review with negative implications. In case you don't know National Service Contract, RRG is majority owned by Interstate National Dealer Services (INDS). I can remember all too well how quickly National Warranty fell from grace as soon as AM Best dowgraded them.
2. First Automotive Service Corp - aka First Automotive Insurance RRG. On January 12, 2004 the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation issued a press release on the following:
"The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) has obtained a permanent injunction ordering a New Mexico service contract provider to stop offering or selling extended warranties for automobiles in Texas for which it lacks proof of adequate financial security.
Judge Suzanne Covington of the 201st District Court in Austin Monday ordered First Automotive Service Corp. (FASC) of Albuquerque to stop providing, offering, advertising, selling or marketing service contracts unless it can show that the policies will be properly backed".
If you remember First Automotive Service Corp is the new administrator for Warranty Gold!!
I only hope and pray that these two companies don't continue to slide like National Warranty did. What we don't need is more consumers facing the same problems we all did since the National Warranty failure.
Thanks Angellove
Ray T.
This whole thing has become a lesson in credit card companies too I guess. I don't think our situations here differ too much - we were all in the same boat with same set of circumstances. It's amazing that the CC companies each end up with different results.
I'm still holding my breath a bit though. You never know. I'm still a "little guy". I would not be surprised if WG invests more in lawyer fees than my contract was worth to screw me back somehow.
My dispute began before the bankruptcy and should have been resolved before it as well, but due to their not sending me WG's rebuttal, it has dragged on this long. Am I crazy to think they did this deliberately and wanted me to miss the deadline? Either I am nuts or they are incompetent considering I spoke to someone TWICE before finally receiving it a few days before the dispute would be closed.
All I want is for the truth to be told and an objective decision. Where your company rejected WG's rebuttal, mine took it as gospel truth and that irks the heck out of me since WG did not answer a simple question like: Will you pay for this customer's "covered" repair with the customer paying zero deductible, and honor the so-called "valid" contract that you sold?
WG just states they are STILL in business - and submits old documents with the whining about National Warranty and how they are "doing everything in their power to honor contracts" neglecting to mention they are NOT honoring contracts, not paying for repairs, and importantly, filing bankruptcy to get contracts declared invalid. And my CC BUYS whatever WG tell them which says to me they simply do not care. My documentation could not have been seriously considered in this decision and considering how it takes weeks for them to do anything, it would have been impossible for them to consider my numerous documents AND have a ruling in the space of a few days. Wouldn't surprise me if they dropped the ball again, didn't respond in time, and WG won this by default. And I let them know dismissing my dispute is unacceptable. So they shut me up by looking into it again.
Do you know anything about arbitration? My CC is trying to get to believe that THEY didn't dismiss me, but Mastercard did based on the WG documents. But then I was told it didn't go to arbitration...so wouldn't that mean my CC decided not to continue? It's hard to get straight answers from my CC cause they are too focused on repeating "There's nothing further we can do..." If anyone knows about arbitration specifics, I'd appreciate your explaining it to me.
However, I'd get all the facts lined up and share them with someone higher-up at the cc company. I'd get the "when you sent in the dispute date" - factor in the standard amount of time they typically allow to process a dispute (even mine was kind of long - many weeks, but if I remember right it was within 6 weeks or so).
If you can show that they took an extended time to process it and it cost you the ultimate opportunity to right yourself then you have something to keep hitting them with. Also, their negligence to contact you regarding WG's rebuttal is crazy. I'd ask what their policy is on that - again time frames are important too.
I'll tell you this, GM card specifically said that they'd contact me if WG issued a rebuttal so that I could respond with more information if needed. They never did contact me about the rebuttal, but that's because they did not accept it.
Often times the first line of people you deal with on the phone don't have much/any power to deal with a case like yours. You need to get to the upper management. Start by asking to talk to their boss, and probably that person's boss as well.
The most you can hope for is to present a clear case with facts that are easy to see and follow and ask someone in corporate that has some power to do something about it. I think it would help if you can show that they did not act in accordance with their policy or time frames.
Maybe we need another thread on how to deal with the CC companies in addition to WG. However with the bankruptcy, this may be a moot point with the CC companies now.
Good luck.
Would completing the forms be a complete waste of my time?
and as Discover Card says, "thank you and have a nice day"
Ray T.
Did anybody else notice on the front page of their website, they had a testimonial from somebody who purchased a warranty that was no longer being offered? Isn't that false and misleading? I can bet that person is NOT a happy customer. This has been changed recently.
Not only am I out the warranty cost. I'm out any repairs. I had planned to keep my car till the warranty expired. Now I'm out the cost of replacing my car earlier as well.
Didn't WG say they had ample protection in a stash for claims? Was that deceptive? They made us believe they were safe to do business with. They lied. They deceived us all. Let me know who to sue.
Anybody purchasing a warranty gold contract after June 2003 is a fool. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold. Do NOT do business with Warranty gold.
Ray T.
For Immediate Release Contact: Patrick Shaughnessy
DATE: January 15, 2004 512-463-3208
WARRANTY GOLD SURRENDERS ITS LICENSE TO TDLR
Company Will No Longer to Able to Operate As Service Contract Provider in Texas
AUSTIN - Warranty Gold, a service contract provider in Austin that sold vehicle warranties over the internet, surrendered its license Thursday to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR).
By relinquishing its license, Warranty Gold forfeits its ability to act as a service contract provider to consumers in Texas. The company still will be able to market warranties on behalf of other licensed providers.
Although it has surrendered its license, the action does not relieve Warranty Gold of its responsibility to service contracts it is already obligated under.
Warranty Gold has been a TDLR-licensed service contract provider since 2000. Until June, contracts the company sold named National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group (NWIG) as the entity that provided the financial security required under Texas law and as the company that would pay for any contract warranty work. On June 7, however, NWIG declared bankruptcy.
Warranty Gold also filed for bankruptcy in federal bankruptcy court in Austin on November 11. In a motion filed in that court, Warranty Gold asked to be relieved of its responsibility for contracts for which NWIG provided financial security. TDLR encourages all consumers who bought a Warranty Gold policy prior to June 7 to file a claim against the company’s assets in bankruptcy court.
For information on filing a claim, go to: http://www.license.state.tx.us/warrantygold.htm.
Most service contracts Warranty Gold has sold since June actually were issued by another licensed service contract provider, First Automotive Service Corp. (FASC) of Albuquerque, N. M., with Warranty Gold serving as an agent for that company. FASC is required by law to honor those contracts.
For Immediate Release Contact: Patrick Shaughnessy
DATE: January 12, 2004 512-463-3208
TDLR INJUNCTION HALTS SALE OF UNSECURED VEHICLE WARRANTIES
Company Must Provide Financial Assurance Before Selling New Policies
AUSTIN - The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) has obtained a permanent injunction ordering a New Mexico service contract provider to stop offering or selling extended warranties for automobiles in Texas for which it lacks proof of adequate financial security.
Judge Suzanne Covington of the 201st District Court in Austin Monday ordered First Automotive Service Corp. (FASC) of Albuquerque to stop providing, offering, advertising, selling or marketing service contracts unless it can show that the policies will be properly backed.
FASC did not contest the injunction. It was entered as an agreed final judgment.
Under the Texas Service Contract Regulatory Act, companies in Texas that provide service contracts are required to prove before they sell policies that they have sufficient funding to service the contracts they sell and they must maintain adequate security during the terms of those contracts. This can be done through the purchase of reimbursement insurance from a third party.
While investigating Warranty Gold, a licensed service contract provider that declared bankruptcy November 11, 2003, TDLR discovered that policies sold by Warranty Gold since June 2003 named FASC, rather than Warranty Gold, as the company that would actually provide the warranty coverage. FASC, in turn, stated in the policies that reimbursement insurance to cover claims was provided by Dealers Assurance Corp. (DAC) of Columbus, Ohio.
However, DAC has informed TDLR that it never agreed to provide reimbursement insurance and never provided financial backing for the policies.
The injunction prevents FASC from offering or selling any policies that are purportedly backed by DAC. The order does not affect FASC’s ability to sell policies properly secured by other insurers.
Created in 1909 as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, TDLR protects the public welfare and safety and promotes a fair and competitive business environment by regulating twenty diverse industries and programs, including service contract providers, boxing, air conditioning contractors and architectural barriers.
There is a M. Newman who has a court case against WG. A hearing on Feb 5, 2004 in the Austin bankruptcy court. They have a motion to amend the rejection of pre June 7, 2003 contracts.
I filled out a form for a claim, but doubt it will do any good. They force you into sending it to WG instead of the court for processing. There is a field for claim amount and they (WG) modified the amount I entered prior to sending it to the court. That is really stupid having WG receive the claims and not the court!
I purchased the WG policy in 12/20/01, filed my dispute on 10/8/03, received a conditional credit on 11/20/03 (they dated it back to my 2nd letter on 11/9/03...just before WG filed for Chapter 11...whew!), and finally received the permanent credit on 1/27/04. It took a little elbow grease to get Citi/MC to really take a look at the dispute...plus the timing worked out pretty well...but I finally got most of my money back. I purchased the policy for $1250 and got $900 back. So from 12/01 to 6/03, I paid about $350 for WG's 5 Year Diamond policy. Not a bad deal. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I never filed any claims on the policy.
Oh well, hopefully Citi/MC can bring in a few more lawyers to fight WG. Thanks again Mastercard!
E-Mail me the info since Edmunds doesnt allow posting here. My e-mail is in my profile.
Thanks
Ray T.
I am expected to fight for my claims against NWIG - as WG would like - and WG (duh) neglected to mention I'd have to Fight a Bankrupt company to be reimbursed as part of their service coverage - in case their "absolutely reliable" Trustee became insolvent, but it seems perfectly logical and reasonable to my CC company who ignore public records and various documentation. How the heck do these companies Investigate a dispute anyway? The argument is Insane and frustrating. But I continue.....
"System temporarily unavailable due to routine maintenance.
Please Call (512) 382-4700 and speak directly with one of our Warranty Consultants for assistance."
Do they close quietly or do they start a completely unrelated new company with a new name, the same owners, location, and staff? I'm betting the latter, this scam has been too damn lucrative.
This is the best possible news really, no one else can get taken by these scum. Lets all learn not to expect something for nothing(or not quite enough, I know I should have known better.)
Show's over, no appearances in court, no letter writing, no recourse. This sucks...
Seems like this company is going down faster than Howard Dean's campaign.
I know we have all gone between frustration, anger and having some fun at their expense, but fact is, I hoped they would be able to pull this together at the last minute.
The fact that NWIG and WG filed bankruptcy did NOT mean they were out of money. History tells us officers in companies running a scam like this one buy their houses in Palm Beach for cash, stash a few mil $$ in their kids name or put everything in their wife's name and THEN go crying to the courthouse telling the judge how bad things are.
There is a book somewhere that I have read that talks about gaining the whole world but losing your soul. What WAS the name of that book? Oh, yeah, here it is.......
Joe
Has anyone found official word of Liquidation? I have not found anything in my searching.
it prompted me: Press [1] if I have $1500, Press [2] if I don't have $1500.
I pressed [2]. It prompted me: If you have a Major Credit card that would not help you in a Merchant Dispute, Press [3] or if you don't have a credit card, Press [4]. I pressed [4].
After being disconnected, I called back again.
This time when asked if I had $1500, I pressed YES [1]
It prompted me: If you have a Match, press [5]so I pressed [5].
It prompted me: If I would rather WATCH my money burn, Press [7] for instructions, otherwise, Please Press [8] and remain on the line for the last remaining representative.
:P
ahhhhh vengence is sweet in the end !
Lets hope WG does not simply start up a Brand new company with our money and start this Pyramid all over again giving them year$ before it will collapse again. Hopefully States will individually prevent these types of companies from selling and Credit cards will warn consumers about these "absolutley reliable" companies.
Ray T.
1-800-580-9889
They have had ample time to notify policyholders of their current status.
The 1 Year Policy does not apply to this purchase, since it was for a 5 year service contract that ends in 2006.
Regulation E states that there is a time frame of 120 days after services have been rendered to dispute a charge. Regulation E applies to reason code 59 for MasterCard ((RS1) - Merchant unwilling or unable (e.g., out of business) to render services). We could also file a compliance case under "Obligation to Provide" (see MasterCard International Chargeback Guide, section 7.1.2)
Hope this helps.
I used the same Reg E provision and language as swagak with Visa.
What Does this "Reg E" exactly mean - or can I find it online? Thanks.
Do you have your bank's fax number? I faxed and snail mailed everything I could get my hands on.
Remember that attorney "B. Weldon Ponder?" At the end of paragraph 3 in his motion seeking to postpone the Jan 8th contract rejection hearing, he stated something to the effect that delaying the Jan 8th hearing would not cause any problems, especially if WG confirmed that it was liquidating...That would indicate that WG has been working toward liquidation (not reorganization) for at least 6-8 weeks!
If WG really is closing, will it have to re-file with the court under Chapter 7? Does Chapter 7 remove any of the protections of Chapter 11?
Chapter 7 Liquidation
Chapter 7 bankruptcy or "straight bankruptcy" is the most popular form of bankruptcy because it allows the debtor to "wipe the slate clean" and start all over. This code is available to individuals, couples, corporations and partnerships. Discharge normally occurs within 4-6 months after filing.
Non-exempt assets will go under the care of a trustee who liquidates them to satisfy creditors in order of their secured interests. Any wages a debtor earns is off limits to creditors who had a vested interest on the date of filing.
This code is generally used by those who lack sufficient income to cover outstanding debts after taking care of basic necessities, and who have no hope of ever repaying their creditors. There are certain obligations that are not dischargeable, for example:
Alimony and child support
Back taxes under 3 years old and student loans
Recently made purchases for substantial amounts
Property executed contracts involving titles or liens
Before considering chapter 7 you should take an inventory of the types of debt owed. This will give you a better idea if filing will give you the relief you seek.
Who should consider chapter 7.
* If there is no hope of repaying any of your debts.
* If there are no cosigners involved,
* If court action by creditors is imminent, filing stays all collection proceeding while in court.
Downsides
Ruins your credit. If you have a cosigner, they will still be responsible for the debt you discharge. Pay attorneys, court and filing fees upfront.
Alternatives
If you can't discharge enough of your debts or have to sacrifice too much property you may want to consider chapter 13 or a credit counseling / debt consolidation repayment plan.
It is made up of 7 contract holders. We have retained an attorney in Austin to represent us in trying to release funds from WG/NWIG.
The old website(you may know which one) will remain active as long as people keep using it. However, the Committee has set up a new one specifically for disseminating information from the Committee to all the contract holders.
We will try to put a link on WGs website to ours.
You can email me for the site.
Currently, there's a limited amount of info there, except for some committee member info. But, as hearings continue, it will be updated.
No legal advice can be given from the Committee to contract holders, though.
I'd certainly like to sign up and participate.