Consumer complaint received 2017-04-21
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Credit card protection / Debt protection — 
Company: CITIBANK, N.A. (WI)

I received a denial letter for an extended warranty claim on m y  XXXX . T he warranty coverage is provided to me as a  Citi Double Cash MasterCard  holder.     I strongly disagree with the denial. I do n't believe the insurance company performed due diligence or even reviewed the appropriate policy terms when evaluating my claim.     The    XXXX   XXXX     2017 denial letter I recei ved indicates that " Your claim is denied because per the Terms and Conditions, coverage does n't apply to [ sic ] item that has a product defect, recall, or experiences normal wear and tear where no failure has occurred. The benefit applies to items that has  [  sic ] a mechanical failure or manufacturer 's defect '' The first sentence states, coverage does n't apply in the case of Product defect Recall Or normal wear and tear When no failure has occurred.     In my case, I did in fact have a failure since th  e   XXXX   would not charge. Thus, the first sentence would not apply to my claim.
The second sentence reads that the benefit applies when there is a mechanical failure or defect. Here, I had a defect/failure that prevented the  XXXX  from   charging. Thus, the second sentence would apply and I should have coverage.     On    XXXX   XXXX     2017, I c alled the number on the letter and was told that failure would be normal after  XXXX  months, therefore I 'm not covered. I find that directly contradictory to the idea of a warranty. The point of a warranty is that covers defects and failures during the period being warranted. I will also note to the extent that this language is ambiguous it should be construed against the drafter - the insurance company.     I requested to speak with a supervisor. I was told that the supervisor was busy, but that I would receive a callback the next day. No callback was ever received.     Additionally, I have no idea what terms and conditions the claims  adjuster  even cited. I have attached a copy of the terms and conditions I received from Citi regarding the extended warranty benefit. Nowhere, in those terms is the language cited in the denial letter present.      XXXX  exclusions are listed 1 ) You fail to care for or service the item appropriately as required by the manufacturer.
2 ) The item has a product defect, recall, or experiences normal wear and tear where no failure has occurred.
3 ) The   item is damaged because of an act of  XXXX , such as a flood, hurricane, lightning, wind or earthquake.     None of these  XXXX  exclusions apply to my situation. The coverage simply states, that they will extend my manufacturer 's warranty for   XXXX   months. I will also note tha t th e  XXXX  Manufac turer Warranty does not contain the language cited by the claims adjuster either.      By both sets of terms and conditions, my claim should qualify.   It is interesting to me that there are also  XXXX  grammatical errors in the language being cited in the denial letter ( marked by " [ sic ] '' in the language quot  ed earlier ),   XXXX   ) There should be the word " an '' before the word item in the  XXXX  sentence  XXXX  ) In the   XXXX    sentence " has '' should read " have '' I 'd be surprised if such errors would be present in any standard terms and conditions that would have been reviewed the insurance company 's attorneys.
I will also will note that the claims adjuster did not inspect the product as to the cause of the failure.
This issue should be revisited by the determination and my claim should be approved.
I reserve the right to provide additional arguments.
A copy of this complaint was also forwarded to the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance.