See also: The Blue Lagoon, its products and the whole spa experience: worth it? – twindly beauty blog
To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as our response to the recent “customer review” sent to the better business bureau by “matt ostrander (jplsty21@gmail.com from zip/postal code: 84044)”, whose vehicle service contract (“vsc”) and recent claim that we have located using the limited information provided. we really appreciate the time mr. ostrander has decided to write and share his concerns, and we ask that he and interested readers in the office consider the following respectful response to those concerns and comments. as a preliminary matter, please understand that while the coverage available under vsc is certainly broad, it does not promise to cover fixing everything that could go wrong with mr. or the stranger’s vehicle, cure all symptoms, or maintain your vehicle in an arbitrarily determined satisfactory operating condition, without regard to cause, circumstances, or compliance with the terms of the vsc. the vsc is not an insurance policy nor is it an unlimited warranty, but rather a simple agreement between your issuing provider and the vsc purchaser, under which the issuing provider agrees to “…repair, replace or reimburse [mr . ostrander] for the reasonable cost of repairing or replacing any of the covered parts, if necessary due to breakdown or mechanical failure”, subject, of course, to vsc’s terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions. a mechanical breakdown or failure is defined in the vsc as “…the inability of any covered part to perform its designed function due to defects in material or workmanship of that covered part.” I understand that not all refund requests initiated by mr. The Ostrander, Salt Lake Valley Chrysler Dodge (“SLV”) repair facility during the recent claim has been denied. instead, and as mr. Ostrander acknowledges that an authorization was issued in an amount representing the replacement of the leaking radiator and right/passenger side head gasket, along with related seals, oil and coolant that would be required for such repairs, by a net amount of $4,194.76, after the deductible per visit of $250.00 from the vsc. Although every effort was made to obtain the full extent of coverage allowed under the VSC terms and conditions, a portion of the requested repair authorization was not eligible for coverage based on the following: 1) as stated, VSC coverage extends only to the repair or replacement of covered parts that experience a “mechanical breakdown or failure” solely due to defects in material or workmanship. 2) slv determined that the initial cause of the overheating symptom for which you had your vehicle towed to their service department was a radiator tank/gasket leak. -Part inspection, confirmed additional engine damage as a result of extreme overheating and vehicle operation following the aforementioned radiator failure and leak. head gasket, a #3 cylinder flushed with coolant with consequent compromise of that cylinder’s cross hatch, cylinder head warping beyond manufacturer’s specifications, severe coolant/oil mixing, etc.5) unfortunately , these conditions do not represent defects in material or workmanship of the components so damaged, the main fundamental requirement of the vsc for coverage. instead, they match and are consistent with the operation of the vehicle in the absence of the necessary refrigerant. is; “due to continued operation and failure to protect the vehicle against further damage caused by a lack of necessary refrigerants or lubricants;”. 7) section c of the vsc titled: “your responsibilities” stipulates that “any operation of the vehicle that results in damages, related to the original mechanical breakdown or failure, will be considered as your failure to protect the vehicle and will not be covered by this vsc.”
however, the administrator granted coverage not only for the radiator diagnosed as the initial cause of the failure, but also for the aforementioned parts and labor that would be applicable to replace the passenger side head gasket, as the logical or expected next step of sub-damage that may have occurred, and on the theory that perhaps the overheating condition that resulted from operating the vehicle with insufficient coolant after the radiator leak, may have led to the head gasket bypass prior to “customary and reasonable notice of the occurrence of a breakdown or mechanical failure.” That authorization, in the net amount of $4,194.76, was provided as a goodwill gesture in the interest of customer satisfaction. customer, which mr ostrander was free to apply as a contribution towards any necessary and proper engine repairs his vehicle might require.. unfortunately the level of damage ext so that the engine suffered above that contribution, it was simply beyond the limited scope of the coverage provided by the vsc; and there is no way for the trustee to set aside the incontrovertible physical evidence presented in this case, in favor of a more expedient outcome that conflicts not only with that evidence and the vsc terms by which we are bound, but with the laws of physics and automotive technology standards and principles, too. Under all these circumstances, we believe that the administrator has acted correctly and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Mr. ostrander vsc; even though we are truly sorry for any frustration or inconvenience he has experienced. We trust that our response to Mr. ostrander’s comments helped provide bureau readers with a clearer understanding and perspective of vsc coverage and the events that took place during the recent claim, and we look forward to the opportunity to provide future coverage for eligible repairs submitted under with vsc terms, throughout its remaining active period.
Reading: Easy care reviews
