Check a provider

In plain terms: this is where you see which specific providers we checked and what we could verify about them (this section is called the Register). "Checked" means we compared the provider against every applicable point of our standard. What this is not: a ranking, a recommendation, or a list of every provider — and no provider can pay to be on it.

Real providers, checked against our published standard (the rules and sources behind every result). Findings are reported in aggregate — we never publish a named provider's failing verdict here. See why below, or see exactly how we reach a pass or fail for the evidence behind every finding.

Records checked: 33

Full reviews completed: 0

Providers listed (passing): 0

Paid placements: 0, by policy

What these terms mean

Round: A group of records checked and published together.
Records checked: Every provider whose public records we have started checking against our standard, even where some points could not be confirmed.
Full review completed: Providers where every applicable point was checked and ended as pass, fail or not applicable, with none unknown and none on hold.
Listed (passing): A full review completed with every applicable point passing (or not applicable), on independent, primary-source evidence. Unknown, incomplete and on-hold records are never counted as passed.
Hold: One or more points are still being verified — it is not a pass, and it is not a fail.

We do not accept payment from any provider — checked, passing, or failing — in exchange for a favorable finding, inclusion in the passing directory, or suppression of a failing result. See our methodology and editorial policy for the full commitment.

Where we are right now: 33 provider records checked so far (18 US and 15 Canadian) against our published standard, and 0 full reviews completed — that is, where every applicable point was checked and ended as pass, fail or not applicable. No record has yet reached the level of independent, primary-source verification we require before naming a provider here, so the passing list below is still empty; that's a statement about how high the bar is, not a placeholder. Updates is where new results will show up as they clear that bar.

What you can do next

Learn the rules first: Guides explain how home warranties and vehicle service contracts work, in the US and Canada.
See what we check: How we check lists the rules and sources behind every result; how our research works explains how we confirm, update and correct facts.
Ask about a provider: request a check for a provider not covered yet.
Spot a mistake: report an error; we review every dispute within 5 business days.

Providers that pass, by name

What "listed (passing)" means: the provider cleared every applicable point of our standard on independent, primary-source evidence.

Each row will carry the exact date we last fully checked that provider and the date we're next committed to re-checking it — a provider won't be "listed and forgotten," it will be on a schedule, and a lighter-weight scan for new developments (new litigation, a new regulatory action, a licensing change) will run weekly in between full re-checks.

Providers that have passed every applicable point of our standard, with jurisdiction, contract type, evidence state, and assessment coverage
Provider	Jurisdiction	Contract type	Evidence state	Assessment coverage
This is where a passing provider will appear.

Want a specific provider checked?

Tell us which one — real requests are how we'll decide what to check first. If we assess it, you'll get one email either way: a pass gets you a direct link, a fail just tells you it didn't pass, never which point or why (same policy as the rest of this page).

Why a failing provider is never named

When a provider fails our standard, we'll report that in aggregate — "X of Y providers checked this round passed" — rather than naming the specific provider. That's a deliberate policy, not a legal hedge: our failing verdict is our own conclusion against a standard we wrote, and we'd rather be conservative about what we assert publicly about a specific business. A passing verdict is different — we're naming a provider for meeting objective, checkable requirements, not accusing it of anything.

There is one planned exception to the failing-side anonymity rule, built the same way it works on the sister sites: a separate, explicitly-approved page indexing already-public enforcement actions — a state insurance-department consent order, an attorney-general judgment — under the provider's own name, exactly as the regulator already published it. That's reporting a public record, not our own verdict, and it hasn't been built yet.

See our editorial policy for how we're funded and what would have to be disclosed if that ever changes.

Report an error in this Register

Think we got something wrong — a fact in a public finding, a gap in our methodology, or a finding you've learned of independently that you believe should have been reflected here? Tell us using the "Report an error / request a correction" option, or email hello@thewarrantyrecord.org directly. We commit to reviewing every correction request within 5 business days, whether or not a provider has been publicly listed yet — this applies to the Register's methodology and any finding behind it, not just to entries that are currently visible on this page.

Corrections

No corrections have been issued on this page yet. When one is, it'll appear here as a dated note — the same way an already-published correction appears directly on the affected page elsewhere on this site — never as a silent edit.