I’ve told you for years not to trust things that sound too good to be true. I’ve also told you many times that these places will take your money and then find a way to wiggle out of paying claims. They write these policies without knowing anything about your car, its maintenance or condition. We brought you a similar story about CarShield being fined 10 million dollars:
CarShield Fined $10,000,000 By The FTC: Jerry Warned You! →
That begs the question: Who are you going to believe, Ice T, a celebrity endorser for CarShield, or retired professional racecar driver Danica Patrick, the face of Endurance Warranty Services? Face it, both are just reading scripts and cashing big, fat, paychecks and have no earthly idea how car extended warranties really work or even if they do. Those 2-minute ads they run are not cheap. This is why I only recommend getting a warranty from a CarPro Certified Dealer, or CarPro trusted partner Chaiz.com. Now, on to the story coming out of Chicago:
Endurance Warranty Services is facing a federal class-action lawsuit alleging the company routinely collects thousands of dollars from consumers for vehicle service contracts but then denies or minimizes repair claims when drivers need help most.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, argues that Endurance’s marketing promotes “comprehensive coverage” and a quick, customer-friendly claims process that does not match the experience of many policyholders. The complaint alleges that customers are often met with long delays, required inspections, and denials that contradict what buyers believed they were purchasing.
According to the filing, Michigan resident Daniel Kujawa purchased a Premier Plus service contract for his 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL450 in April 2024, paying approximately $6,583 for the coverage. Just a few months later, the SUV suffered an engine failure. A repair facility estimated the replacement at roughly $13,500. The lawsuit states that Endurance required a full engine teardown before making any determination, a process that dragged into the fall. By the time the work was approved, the shop’s estimate had risen to more than $19,000. Endurance ultimately paid $7,000, leaving the owner responsible for more than $12,000 out of pocket.
The suit claims this was not an isolated case. Another plaintiff, the owner of a 2012 Honda Civic, purchased a contract for more than $2,600 and later sought approval for a transmission replacement. The claim was denied. A third customer, with a 2016 GMC Acadia and a policy that cost more than $4,500, reported that Endurance refused to cover needed repairs after repeated delays and inspection requests. The lawsuit asserts that these experiences reflect a pattern of behavior that violates consumer-protection laws and amounts to breach of contract.
Court filings say Endurance advertises having paid hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and promotes its programs as a hassle-free alternative to dealership warranties. Plaintiffs contend those messages create a reasonable expectation that repairs will be covered as described. Instead, the suit alleges that policyholders frequently face hurdles that make payouts difficult to obtain. Some report that vehicles sat in repair shops for weeks while adjusters requested additional documentation or suggested inspections that drove up costs and complicated the process.
The complaint also references incidents outside the Illinois case to demonstrate the broader pattern alleged. In one example highlighted by consumer advocates, a driver whose transmission failed was initially denied reimbursement because a maintenance receipt was handwritten. After submitting a typed version, the customer received only partial coverage, still paying hundreds of dollars themselves. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that such disputes are typical of how the warranty provider handles claims.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of customers nationwide, refund of premiums, reimbursement for denied claims, and injunctive relief preventing the company from continuing the practices described. Attorneys for the plaintiffs say the case illustrates the risks consumers face when purchasing third-party extended warranties, which are heavily marketed online, through call centers, and via mass mailings.
Endurance has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the service contracts require arbitration rather than litigation in federal court. As of early December, the judge had not ruled on that request. No trial date has been set, and the company has not filed a detailed public response refuting the factual allegations.
While the case moves forward, consumer advocates advise buyers to scrutinize any extended service contract carefully, especially those sold by third-party providers rather than automakers. They recommend reviewing coverage limits, excluded components, proof-of-maintenance requirements, and any arbitration clauses before signing. They also note that state insurance regulators may have limited oversight of service-contract administrators compared with traditional insurers.
For now, the lawsuit sits at the intersection of two realities: a marketplace where drivers want protection from expensive repairs, and a segment of the warranty industry that continues to draw scrutiny from courts and regulators. Whether Endurance ultimately prevails on its arbitration argument or faces the claims in open court, the case highlights the growing tension between aggressive marketing strategies and what customers say happens after their vehicles break down.