My name is Greg Weston and I reside in Flagler County. I am a retired local Florida law enforcement officer, former United States Marine, and what began as a mechanical failure on what was supposed to be my retirement truck, turned into an examination of how dealership finance and warranty administration actually function.

On April 4, 2020, I purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado from Jack Hanania Chevrolet in St. Augustine, Florida. During the transaction, I was sold what was described as a “Lifetime Powertrain Limited Warranty” administered by Fidelity Warranty Services. I signed the paperwork, but I was provided with only a single page—Page 1 of a 7-page agreement. The remaining six pages, which contain the actual governing terms, were not provided at the time of sale.

For over two years, the vehicle operated normally. On November 1, 2022, it was serviced at the dealership for transmission-related concerns, including hard shifting and a rumble strip sensation, which resulted in diagnostic testing and a fluid exchange.

Three years after purchase, on November 30, 2025, the situation changed. The vehicle developed a serious drivetrain issue, including engine misfires, a service engine warning light, and abnormal engine noise. I delivered the vehicle back to the dealership for warranty claim evaluation.

On December 11, 2025, Fidelity Warranty Services conducted an inspection that documented internal engine damage, loud ticking, misfire codes, and suspected AFM lifter and camshaft failure. The inspector explicitly stated that additional diagnostics and a teardown were required.

I authorized a limited teardown to the point of failure so the issue could be properly identified. At the same time, I began requesting documentation—specifically, my complete claim file, inspection materials, and any decision-making records. On December 24, 2025, I submitted a written request to Fidelity for those materials.

On December 28, 2025, Fidelity provided only a redacted copy of the first inspection report and confirmed that no final claim decision had been made. Knowing that additional inspections had occurred, I submitted further written requests on December 31, 2025, asking for the missing second and third inspection reports.

By early January 2026, the dealership’s diagnostic teardown confirmed collapsed AFM lifters and camshaft lobe damage, and engine repair or replacement was recommended.

At that point, I expanded my requests. On January 4, 2026, I contacted the dealership’s finance department seeking any additional warranty documents in my file. On January 5, the Service Director sent a borescope image and technician findings. That same day, I issued a formal written request to the dealership, Fidelity Warranty Services, and General Motors for:

• the missing inspection reports,

• the dealership’s diagnostic assessments, and

• the complete executed warranty contract.

One of those referenced reports noted that the rear differential was completely “bone dry” of lubricant.

On January 7, 2026, I was told that the remaining warranty pages were part of my finance documents, contained personal information, and could not be shared in a group email. I was again directed to the finance department.

Despite these ongoing requests, the documents were not produced.

Instead, on January 15, 2026, General Motors submitted a response to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) characterizing the situation as a “refusal of repair” and deflecting responsibility to the dealership and warranty administrator.

That characterization was incorrect. I formally corrected the record on January 16, 2026, making it clear that I had not refused repairs. My position was consistent throughout:

I would authorize repairs once the governing contract and supporting documentation were provided.

On January 20, 2026, I submitted a Public Records Request to FDACS to obtain additional information regarding complaints involving the dealership, Fidelity Warranty Services, and General Motors.

Following the involvement of regulators, the dealership began producing multiple versions of the warranty contract.

On February 3, 2026, they transmitted generic, blank template pages labeled “2–7.” I rejected these in writing because they were not executed, not personalized, and not tied to the transaction I entered into in April 2020.

On February 4, I issued a formal written notice requesting the actual executed contract. On February 12, the dealership produced yet another version—by that point, the fifth distinct rendition. This version was not countersigned, lacked proof of delivery, and differed from prior versions.

On February 13, I was told that requests for the inspection reports needed to be directed to Fidelity, while at the same time being asked to provide a repair authorization decision.

On February 15, 2026, I filed a formal complaint with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) regarding the missing documentation and contract inconsistencies.

The situation escalated in early March.

On March 3, 2026, I was informed that the dealership intended to return the vehicle via a third-party tow truck. I responded in writing requesting confirmation of the vehicle’s condition and reiterating that I had not refused repairs.

On March 4, the dealership confirmed that the repair order had been closed, the warranty claim had been canceled, and the vehicle was being returned without a completed repair or claim determination.

That same day, I issued a formal verification request demanding confirmation of the existence and custody of the executed service contract.

On March 5, 2026:

• Fidelity Warranty Services confirmed it does not maintain executed contracts and that the dealer is the custodian

• General Motors confirmed that no service contract was associated with my VIN

On March 10, General Motors issued a communication stating they had been unable to reach me, which I immediately corrected in writing while reiterating my outstanding document requests.

On March 22, 2026, I issued a statutory 30-day demand letter under Florida law.

When the vehicle was ultimately returned to me, it was not repaired. It was in a disassembled and non-operational condition, with major engine components removed and parts placed inside the vehicle.

THE ISSUE

This situation did not arise from a refusal to repair a vehicle.

It arose from a failure to produce the contract that governed the warranty, combined with missing inspection records and incomplete documentation during the claim process.

A warranty was sold.

The full contract was not provided.

When the vehicle failed, the contract could not be produced.

And decisions were expected to be made without it.