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