A Michigan truck owner says the extended warranty he purchased from a dealership became useless when his Chevrolet Silverado needed repairs. The problem? His truck had a lift kit and oversized tires, and the warranty company wouldn’t cover it.
The buyer purchased the used 2015 Silverado from a dealership in Coopersville, Michigan. According to his account, those modifications were already installed when he bought the truck, and the dealership knew about them before selling him a third-party service contract.
Roughly three months later, he was facing nearly $2,300 in repairs. Instead of getting the work covered, he learned that the modifications disqualified his truck from the protection he thought he had purchased.
A refund eventually came through, but the owner says he didn’t get back everything he paid. Frustrated with the outcome, he took his complaint to Reddit on October 19 and asked whether the dealership could be held responsible for his repair bill.
Something Doesn’t Add Up
Dealership sold a faulty third party warranty
by
u/Fit_Department_8769 in
FuckDealerships
In a post shared on Reddit, the Silverado owner explained why he believed the dealership had made a mistake.
He claimed the dealer knew about the modifications but never disclosed them to the warranty company. Had the correct information been provided, he questioned whether the service contract would have been sold in the first place. The buyer didn’t identify the broken component, explain the exact reason given for canceling coverage, or share the contract’s exclusions. What he did make clear was the amount at stake. When another user asked about the repairs, he said the bill was approaching $2,300.
He also confirmed that he purchased the Silverado through the used-car department of a franchised dealership rather than an independent used-car lot.
Not A Full Refund
The warranty company eventually refunded the contract cost to his loan company. One commenter considered that a satisfactory outcome, and argued that both the buyer and dealership should have reviewed the contract more carefully.
The owner disagreed. He explained that the refund covered what the warranty company charged, but the dealership had kept its share of the sale. The buyer didn’t disclose how much that amounted to.
Another commenter asked whether the dealership could arrange a replacement service contract that allowed for modified vehicles. That might address future coverage, but the Silverado already needed repairs. The discussion became heated when a user insisted that the owner had received a full refund. He pushed back, repeating that the dealership had kept part of his payment.
The exchange exposed two separate complaints. The first concerned money spent on a contract that didn’t provide the expected coverage. The second involved the repair costs that prompted him to use the contract in the first place.
What Went Wrong?
Vehicle service contracts can come with restrictions that aren’t immediately obvious when a buyer signs the paperwork. The Federal Trade Commission explains that these agreements, often marketed as extended warranties, are optional products sold separately from the vehicle. Their terms determine which repairs qualify for payment.
Unlike a manufacturer’s warranty, a third-party service contract can have its own requirements and exclusions. The FTC advises buyers to review those conditions before signing, especially when deciding whether a contract offers useful protection. There is also an important distinction between having aftermarket equipment and having a contract that excludes it. A lift kit doesn’t automatically cancel every type of vehicle coverage. The wording of the specific agreement matters.
In this case, the buyer maintains that the modifications were known to the dealership before the sale. The Reddit discussion does not establish whether the contract could have been written to accommodate them, or whether another provider would have accepted the Silverado.
As of his October 19 post and subsequent replies, the buyer said the warranty company had refunded its portion of the contract cost toward his loan. He was still disputing the money retained by the dealership and facing a repair bill approaching $2,300.