Lawsuit Against Endurance Warranty Company
Endurance Warranty, which positions itself as reliable protection against major vehicle repair costs, has become the subject of a federal lawsuit due to its marketing promises and contract terms.
Main Allegations
The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accuse Endurance of selling expensive “vehicle service contracts” that do not actually provide the coverage advertised.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, does not mince words. The plaintiffs point to Endurance’s own marketing, including phrases like “the most complete coverage you can count on,” approvals “in as little as 48 hours,” and statements about “over $300 million in paid claims” as evidence for their point.
They recount sometimes waiting for months, only to end up spending thousands of dollars more than they had already paid for coverage.
Warranty Tested in Practice
The lawsuit cites illustrative stories that demonstrate the alleged scheme. One of the most vivid examples is plaintiff Daniel Kujawa from Michigan, who purchased a “Premier Plus” plan for his 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL450 and paid approximately $6,583 in April 2024.
In July of the same year, the SUV experienced an engine failure. The repair shop estimated the cost of an engine replacement at approximately $13,515. The lawsuit alleges that Endurance delayed the process, demanding a labor-intensive engine teardown before authorizing any work.
This process was not approved until October, and by that time, the shop’s estimate had risen to $19,056.50. Unsurprisingly, the teardown confirmed the initial diagnosis. Despite this, Kujawa found himself in a difficult position. Smart Auto Care, a third party associated with Endurance, offered him only $7,000 for the repair.
At this point, Kujawa would have had to appeal to Smart Auto Care if he wanted to get more. Endurance limits its coverage based on the vehicle’s actual cash value. In other words, it is unlikely the company would ever have agreed to pay a $19,056.50 bill for a 2013 GL450.
Similar Cases and Next Steps
Other cases cited in the lawsuit follow a similar pattern, including the owner of a 2012 Honda Civic who paid $2,634.10 for warranty coverage, only to be denied a transmission replacement a year after the policy took effect.
These consumers initially paid several thousand dollars for coverage. Then, when it was most needed, they allegedly waited for months, only to end up disappointed.
The general allegations include breach of contract, deceptive practices, unjust enrichment, and related claims under state consumer protection laws on behalf of a national class. The lawsuit seeks to certify the class, recover insurance premium payments and denied repair costs, and pursue injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.
This case highlights a broader issue in the extended warranty industry, where marketing claims often do not match actual contract terms. Many consumers are unaware of coverage limitations, such as the link to the vehicle’s market value, which can lead to significant financial losses during major breakdowns. Similar lawsuits may contribute to greater transparency and customer protection in the future.