Update:
On January 22, 2026, FeganScott and co-counsel filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. Therein, it replaces the nationwide class and seeks to represent residents of Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Endurance has again moved to compel arbitration for certain consumers and to dismiss or strike the amended class allegations. Plaintiffs’ opposed the motion on May 5, 2026. The motion is fully briefed and we are waiting on the Court’s decision. Fegan Scott will continue to post updates as the case moves forward.
Update:
On November 25, 2025, Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled on Endurance’s first motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit. He granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court refused to send most of the named consumers’ claims to arbitration. It found the arbitration clause in certain Vehicle Service Contracts substantively unconscionable. It also found that Endurance had not shown that certain consumers agreed to arbitration simply by using Endurance’s website. The court also struck the original complaint’s class allegations. The original complaint had proposed a single nationwide class of Vehicle Service Contract purchasers.
–
On March 19, 2025, FeganScott and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers who purchased third party extended warranties for their cars, referred to as Vehicle Service Contracts, from Endurance Warranty Services. According to the lawsuit, Endurance touts itself as America’s “Best Vehicle Protection Plan Provider” and promises customers a “stress-free claims process” that takes as “little as 48 hours.” But in reality, when consumers file claims for repairs under their respective Vehicle Service Contracts, Endurance does not deliver on its contractual obligations. Endurance’s claim process can take several weeks or months to render decisions on claims and has denied repair coverage without any justification.
As a result, consumers have incurred thousands of dollars in expenses while waiting for Endurance to render decisions on their claims, lost complete use of their vehicles while waiting for a decision on their claims, have been forced to pay out of pocket for auto repairs that Endurance promised would be covered, and otherwise paid for a Vehicle Service Contract that does not provide the promised coverage.
“As a law firm dedicated to protecting consumers, we continue to find consumers abused in many different corners of the U.S. car industry,” said FeganScott attorney Jonathan Lindenfeld. “Whether it is a dangerous defect that can cause a vehicle to spontaneously erupt or a third-party warrantor failing to live up to its promises to protect consumers from unexpected and costly repairs, we are committed to ensuring that companies do not put their bottom lines ahead of consumers.”
The lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers in the United states who purchased an Endurance Vehicle Service Contract and aims to hold Endurance to its promises and responsible for the damages it caused by refuting its obligations. If you or someone you know have purchased an Endurance Vehicle Service Contract, we urge you to contact our firm to learn more about your rights as a consumer.