Best of luck to every SRX owner trying to get this problem fixed with Cadillac’s Feb. ’20 offer “…in the interests of customer satisfaction to reimburse you for any prior out-of-pocket SRX low-beam headlamp, headlamp capsule or headlamp bulb replacement costs..” Others may have read this letter differently but to us – from the outset- it read like legalese for…in order to AVOID a class-action lawsuit over an issue we KNOW is a problem, we will offer SRX owners the opportunity to have the problem fixed – at their own expense, and we’ll make a half-hearted attempt to reimburse them for the repairs (and in doing so, we’ll get them to sign a release against any future claims resulting from this SAFETY ISSUE.) BUT, we’ll make it difficult if not impossible to fulfill the requirements for this reimbursement by:
1) making the window of opportunity very short (Feb. 28 – May 28, 2020)
2) doing this in the midst of a global pandemic, which may or may not have been a factor in that the needed replacement parts were unavailable – at least to the local dealers we contacted
3) later extending that eligibility window due to the unavailability of the needed parts but NOT similarly notifying SRX owners of the extension
4) not clearly instructing dealers how to process these cases. Upon receipt of the Feb. 28 letter we almost immediately (given the short time-frame allowed) contacted 2 of only 3 Cadillac dealers in our proximity – the one we purchased from said they would charge us the full $1600 allowable, plus tax (which we would have to absorb). Another local dealer said they would be happy to do the repairs within the allotted $1600, but we’d have to get in line with all their other customers awaiting the parts.
5) similarly not adequately instructing Analytics Consulting, the firm to whom they outsourced the processing of these reimbursement claims, on what would (and would not) be allowable under this “opportunity.” In our case, with the response from our local dealers (see #4 above) and the May 28 deadline looming, we asked Analytics’ representative if after-market replacement headlamp units (we were told headlamps were still unavailable through Cadillac dealers at that point) could be purchased by us and installed. Analytics confirmed that yes, that could be done, under the following conditions: the after-market headlamps had to be installed by an ASE-certified mechanic; the installation receipt or invoice had to specify “Customer provided headlamp units used in this repair”; the SRX owner had to submit receipts for both parts and the ASE-certified installation as part of the claim; the SRX owner could not file a claim for parts only (and presumably self-install) – they must submit both parts and labor receipts. And note, this exchange between Analytics and us is clearly documented in their system.
6) So, we purchased the headlamps online, one of the 2 local Cadillac dealers mentioned previously was happy to install them (for a relatively nominal labor charge, I might add) and they clearly indicated on their invoice that we had provided the headlamps for the repair (as Analytics said must be noted). In short, we did what Analytics expressly told us to do.
7) We submitted all the required paperwork as instructed by Analytics, mailing it on May 8. Whew!
So I’m sure you’ve already guessed the outcome. Cadillac sent us a “Notice of Claim Deficiency” dated Sept. 4 (i.e. almost 4 months after we mailed our paperwork) and said our claim was DEFICIENT because “We are unable to verify that the [sic] some or all of the repair receipts provided are for the eligible VIN identified on your Claim Form documentation because the documentation provided does not identify the VIN of the vehicle that received the repairs. To be eligible for reimbursement, please submit repair documentation containing the eligible VIN.”
For the record, the documentation we sent included the receipt for the online purchase of headlamp units (which would not, of course, have a VIN attached, no headlamps would) and the paid invoice from the Cadillac dealer that installed said parts, with the vehicle’s VIN clearly listed and the statement “Customer provided headlamp units used in this repair.” Follow-up calls to Analytics have confirmed they have our prior discussions documented in their system, but now they tell us that “aftermarket” parts means Cadillac accessories (since when are headlamps an accessory?) purchased through a Cadillac dealer. WHAT? Clearly the rules have changed since the spring, and calls to Cadillac’s owner customer service channels have been similarly frustrating. Their advice to us…hand-write our vehicle’s VIN on our receipt for the online headlamp purchase and resubmit the claim by the Oct. 4 deadline (4 months to process the claim, 1 mo. from the date of the letter to try to comply). But they admit our claim will almost assuredly again be rejected. And our prediction is that by the time that happens, we’ll be out of time altogether to take advantage of Cadillac’s generous offer “in the interests of customer satisfaction.”
In short, our SRX (which we dearly love and has been a great vehicle) now has beautifully bright headlamps, but we’re out of pocket the costs to make it safe to drive at night. Even more so, we now have such a bad attitude toward Cadillac that we’re unlikely to ever buy another after this debacle (assuming it won’t be resolved fairly). And we’ve made it a personal mission to share this story as broadly as possible in the hopes that other Cadillac SRX owners won’t be similarly penalized “in the interests of customer satisfaction.” SRX owners, consider yourself warned about this matter….
