Consumer complaint received 2021-12-20
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Problem with rewards from credit card
Company: Point Up Inc (CA)

In the past year, I got a card from XXXX. XXXX of the main reasons I decided to go with this company were the benefits offered through Mastercard, including the car rental benefits. My first time attempting to use the benefits I used while renting a car from XXXX, a company that even describes itself as a car rental company. If Googled, the search engine shows under the main XXXX link an option to see which cars are available to rent near you. 
At the time, my car was vandalized, and it was not worth keeping insurance, as I was only renting cars to use during the time. This protection offered by my card was perfect. So when I rented a car from XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX, I did everything as told by member benefits. I declined the rental protection. 
While I had the car, someone did a hit and run. At the time I returned the car, I let them know and said the card company would handle the claim. I reached out to Point, who then said they had a third party, Mastercard, that dealt with such claims and that I must file the claim with them. I filled the claim and waited for a response. 
During the time I waited for a response, I was inundated with emails and contact from XXXX trying to get the claim settled. I let them know to go through Mastercard directly. I then received correspondence from Mastercard informing me the claim was denied. The denial indicated that coverage was not given to any loss involving the rental vehicle being used for hire, for commercial use, or as a public or livery conveyance. Which made no sense, because the car was for personal use and not anything indicated by the denial letter. 
I then received a new card from Point. Once I opened it, I noticed they changed to Visa. So, I reached out to Point and asked why the change was happening and if they had issues with Mastercard, because I had run into this issue with them after filing a claim. I asked if they could help and resolve this matter, but their responses were not making sense. I would point out how their response did not relate to my issue, so they kept changing their response and said it was all about how the verbiage of policy should be interpreted. As a consumer, I had read the policy as it presented itself. I cant assume anything other than the words on the page. The definitions they used werent the known definitions. In conclusion, they finally said the denial was because XXXX is not a car rental company. Even though XXXX presents itself as a car rental company. The only stipulations mentioned by the policy said Mastercard did not cover work vehicles. Point tried to take any of their part out by saying they had no control over the claims. This stood out as Point advertises these benefits. It is assumed they have some responsibility to the consumer to enforce their advertisements. 
The denial and refusal of the claim was said to be because they dont cover cars that are for hire. It indicated that if you were profiting from a rental, a claim could not be made. I want profiting, I usedthe car for private use. It seems Mastercard changes the definition of words so that their rulings can be validated, even if the new rules sound nothing like what is written on paper.

The resulting denial has resulted in an almost {$9000.00} invoice for the vehicle. If I had known the definitions being used by Mastercard and Point in their determination of claims, I would have purchased rental insurance. I was duped. As a consumer, my only knowledge of the policy is that as it is written in plain English, I cant be forced to assume new definitions for words. As an example, taxi or for hire ( these indicate aprofit is being made by using the vehicle ), but instead they mean carshare is not covered. Even point admitted the wording of the policy was not good. 
I need Mastercard to step up and make this right. I did everything to the book, and this denial shows a lack of concern for their customers and seems at odds with Consumer Law. It also appears to be a breach of contract, a breach of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence to say the least.