A federal class-action lawsuit accuses Endurance Warranty of misleading customers with aggressive marketing that promises comprehensive vehicle protection while allegedly denying legitimate repair claims. The suit alleges a pattern of delayed approvals, low payouts, and coverage limitations that leave drivers stuck with thousands in unexpected bills despite paying premiums for years.
The Core Claims
Plaintiffs accuse Endurance of falsely advertising “complete coverage” and rapid claim approvals—promises they claim were never delivered. The complaint highlights marketing slogans like “complete coverage you can count on” and “approvals in as little as 48 hours” as evidence of misleading consumers. The lawsuit centers around the accusation that Endurance sold expensive vehicle service contracts that failed to deliver on their advertised benefits.
A Case Study: Engine Failure and Delayed Payouts
One plaintiff, Daniel Kujawa, purchased an “Premier Plus” plan for his 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL450 in April 2024 for approximately $6,583. When the engine failed in July, he faced a $13,515 repair bill. Endurance allegedly stalled the approval process for months by demanding a costly engine teardown before authorizing any work. By the time the claim was finally approved in October, the repair cost had risen to over $19,000. Despite confirmation of the initial diagnosis, Endurance offered only $7,000 toward the repair, leaving Kujawa to cover the rest.
This case illustrates a common tactic: Endurance caps payouts based on a vehicle’s actual cash value, making full coverage for older vehicles effectively impossible.
Recurring Complaints
The lawsuit cites multiple similar cases. Another example includes a 2012 Honda Civic owner who paid $2,634.10 for a warranty only to have a transmission replacement claim denied a year later. These consumers allege they paid thousands upfront for coverage, then endured long delays and ultimately received inadequate compensation when repairs were needed.
Legal Action and Relief Sought
The plaintiffs seek class-action certification, reimbursement for premiums and denied repairs, an injunction preventing further deceptive practices, and recovery of legal fees. The complaint includes claims of breach of contract, deceptive practices, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer laws.
The lawsuit highlights the tension between the marketing promises of extended warranty companies and the actual coverage provided—a gap that leaves consumers exposed to costly vehicle repairs despite believing they are protected.
