Auto-Forums.net

[Alan Illeman]

I have a claim into GM under a 'Protection Plan' I
purchased with this used Buick LeSabre. The brakes
failed and my garage found that the calipers had
seized and in doing so, had damaged the brake
pads and rotors. (Fortunately this failure did not
occur on the highway).

Brake pads and rotors are not normally covered
but I have argued that they were damaged by the
failure of the calipers and therefore ARE covered.

GM has a list of "What Is Not Covered":

(A) For a failure due to misuse, alteration, or lack of
proper maintenance;

(B) For any damage resulting from a collision, fire,
theft, freezing, vandalism, riot or explosion;

(C) For a failure caused by lightning, earthquake,
windstorm, hail, water or flood;

(D) For any cost covered by Warranty or otherwise
covered by a manufacturer's or a repairer's guarantee;

(E) For ecomomic loss including loss of time, inconvenience,
lodging, food or other incidental or consequential loss or
damage that may result from a failure;

(F) For storage charges;

(G) For a failure caused by a condition that existed prior to
purchase this Plan, or if the odometer has stopped or been
changed;

(H) For a failure caused by racing or other competition;

(I) For a failure caused by pulling a trailer or another vehicle
unless your vehicle is equipped for this as recommended by
the manufacturer;

(J) If your vehicle is used for ant purposes listed under "Ineligible
Vehicles" which would render your vehicle ineligible for the
Plan coverages selected;

(K) If the Warranty on your vehicle has been voided;

(L) If a misrepresentation was made on the Schedule "A";

(M) For a failure due to rust damage or contaminated fuel systems.

The GM calldesk representative has said that (E) applies by reason
of "or other incidental or consequential loss or damage that may result
from a failure" that this is "catch-all phrase", but I have argued vehemently
that the whole of (E) refers to 'economic loss' only.

Eventually I got connected to the 'Supervisor' and after a long talk he
agreed verbally with my position. I gave an example of someone
missing a flight from an airport due to a car failure, that this was what
is implied by "or other incidental or consequential loss or damage that
may result from a failure" i.e. referring to "economic loss". He added that
'maybe we will have to get our lawyers to tighten up this apparent
ambiguity'.

But.. the 'supervisor' now says that they will only cover the parts, if these
same parts have been replaced within the last 12 months. (they haven't)

Do any of you have access to a lawyer-friend, who might offer an opinion
(as I am thinking about taking this to Small Claims Court)? The amount in
question, parts and labor, is $572.

Cheers,
Alan