— An Endurance Warranty Services lawsuit is partially dismissed, including class action claims.
However, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend and refile most of their claims.
The Endurance warranty lawsuit was filed by five customers who claim they paid for “vehicle service contracts” that were worthless.
The class action lawsuit claims that Endurance advertises its warranty, which means a customer “will never pay again for covered auto repairs.”
According to the plaintiffs, they paid thousands of dollars for the vehicle maintenance contracts and when they tried to use the warranty, they were denied coverage. Endurance advertisements allegedly tricked customers into paying for vehicle warranties that were not cost-effective.
Typically purchased through the website EnduranceWarranty.com, the service contracts are advertised as America’s “Best Vehicle Protection Plan Provider,” promising customers “complete coverage you can count on.”
The lawsuit goes on to argue that the warranty plans are advertised as “the most comprehensive auto protection plans in the industry.”
The Endurance warranty lawsuit alleges that the company takes several weeks or months to decide claims, but customers are told that repairs will not be paid for by Endurance. Customers also claim they were forced to park their cars while they waited for a claims decision, but were then still stuck paying the bills.
One plaintiff complains that she paid approximately $4,500 for her Endurance warranty service contract, which offered coverage for the transmission in her Ford F-150. She filed a claim for a transmission replacement and it reportedly took a month for Endurance to tell her the claim had been denied.
She couldn’t use her truck and by the end she paid about $8,500 in out-of-pocket expenses to replace the transmission. The other plaintiffs tell similar stories with similar outcomes.
According to the warranty class action:
‘Endurance’ work[s] scare tactics and other unfair and deceptive conduct to secure contracts that do not provide the promised coverage.” Endurance “sales representatives are instructed to scare consumers that consumers’ vehicles are susceptible to certain malfunctions and that they will face high repair costs,” and to “withhold material information about coverage under the contract.”
Motion to dismiss the forbearance bond lawsuit
The company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action as well as a motion to compel arbitration. According to Endurance, four of the five plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims.
In a 43-page opinion, Judge Robert W. Gettleman sent one plaintiff to arbitration and temporarily stayed his claims, but allowed the other plaintiffs’ claims to proceed.
With regard to the motion to dismiss based on a class action waiver, the court denied the motion as to one plaintiff but granted the motion as to the other four plaintiffs.
And importantly, regarding the motion to dismiss or strike the class action allegations, the judge granted the motion to dismiss the class action allegations.
The judge allowed fraud claims to proceed, but rejected claims for unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. The judge also allowed several state consumer protection claims to proceed.
With the exception of the sole plaintiff whose claims were sent to arbitration, the remaining plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended warranty lawsuit by December 23, 2025. Endurance must respond to the amended and refiled lawsuit by January 20, 2026.
The Endurance Warranty lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Jessica Cooper, et al., v. Endurance Dealer Services, LLC, and Endurance Warranty Services, LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Fegan Scott LLC and Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
#Lawsuit #sustainability #guarantee #partially #dismissed