Update by user Jul 27, 2014
To update this issue. In March, I contacted the Better Business Bureau regarding Asurion.
I provided them with the same information I posted here. Within a week, the BBB had reviewed my complaint and contacted Asurion on my behalf. A couple weeks after that, I received a phone call from the legal department at Asurion. They stated that their representatives should not have taken the action they did, and should have proceeded differently.
He stated that they would reimburse me for the unit. And sure enough, within a couple days I received a check for the entire purchase price of the unit.
Original review posted by user Jan 31, 2014
Back in October 2012, I purchased a Haier washer/dryer combo unit with an extended warranty through the Walmart.com website. This past October (Oct. 2013), the unit began to throw error codes that prevented it from drying clothes.
Over the past three months, Asurion has sent out repair technicians (from two different companies) on six different occasions. Unfortunately, none of these appointments resulting in a working unit. On nearly every occasion, the technician would make an adjustment or replace a part, and then wait the minimum amount of time (roughly 8-10 minutes) before leaving, claiming that the issue has been fixed.
After the last appointment (on Wednesday, January 22rd) when the machine still would not dry, I contacted Asurion and requested the ‘No Lemon Policy’ be invoked. The supervisor I spoke to agreed that this should qualify as no repair should take over 3 months to resolve. She proceeded to send my claim to a different department that handles replacements and reimbursements for service contracts.
The next day, I received a phone call from a representative who told me that my claim was denied due to it not satisfying the requirements for the “No Lemon Policy”. According to the representative, the unit has only incurred two repairs while the policy requires three unsuccessful repairs followed by a diagnosis indicating a fourth repair is necessary.
I disagreed with this decision as their undocumented definition of “a repair” meant that parts in the unit had to be replaced. However, this is not defined anywhere on the service contract. The standard definition of “a repair” is to restore to sound condition, to set right, to remedy. Under this definition, my claim most definitely meets the requirements.
After feeling like I was no longer being heard, I asked to speak to a supervisor which apparently this particular department does not have. I was told that I had to contact the service center again if I wanted to speak to any sort of supervisor.
In a last ditch effort to get this issue resolved before a quarter of a year had passed, I contacted a supervisor at the service center. The supervisor proceeded to give me the same “only 2 repairs” speech without indicating where a repair is defined as a part replacement. I pleaded with them to see my side of the issue as the problem has been ongoing for so long and either myself or my tenant (a co-worker of mine) has been forced to miss work for six different appointments. Having heard me say the word “tenant”, she told me that “as it is a rental unit, the contract is now void”. She stated that she’d be willing to give me the number of the repair facility but I would have to pay for any repairs out of pocket. In complete shock of what I was being told, I asked where it said that renting would cancel the warranty, as which point she pointed to a section in the “What is not covered” section that states “(6) PRODUCTS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (MULTI-USER ORGANIZATIONS) PUBLIC RENTAL OR COMMUNAL USE IN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING;”. Unfortunately, she doesn’t understand the difference between a “public rental” and a “private rental”, and as a single-unit condo owner, renting this unit to an acquaintance is considered a private rental.
After cooling off for a week, I decided to call back to at least get another appointment scheduled. If I couldn’t get them to replace or reimburse me, maybe we can get lucky and the 7th repair technician can solve the issue. This time, the supervisor refused to even put in the appointment stating that the account has been marked as “for commercial use” and therefore does not qualify. Once again, I was caught in a debate regarding the wording and their self-serving interpretation. Their claim was that as I’m collecting rent and the unit is in the condo, that it is being used for commercial purposes. My argument was that the unit was not being used with the intention of making a profit. It has nothing to do with the money being transfer as rent. Additionally, if a private rental is considered to be “COMMERCIAL PURPOSES”, why would the service contract explicitly state “PUBLIC RENTAL” in the same statement? Wouldn’t all rentals fall under “COMMERCIAL PURPOSES”?
This will be the last extended warranty I’ll ever purchase, and Walmart will lose most of my business due to this fiasco. While Asurion is the company at fault, I consider Walmart to be just as liable for utilizing this company for their extended service plans.
Monetary Loss: $800.