Consumers will need to represent themselves, and this site is designed to help.  Here's some common mistakes people make.

What do you mean this isn't covered, they told me my policy covers everything

• 
  
  
  1. Scared to represent yourself and doing nothing.  Many warranty companies will not pay just claims, lawyers can be expensive, but you need to take action.    
  
  2. Confusing presentation or legal papers.  No one expects a pro se to be familiar with all legal terms, but you should be able to explain your claim in a clear and simple fashion.  Begin- this case involves a warranty contract stated to cover the transmission, the transmission failed, but the company refused to cover the cost.  Don't start, so judge I spoke with Gordon at the dealer who sent me to Michael, I spoke with George the mechanic who sent me to Fred but Mr. Jackson told me to speak with Jack, and I waited, but they said they didn't receive me fax but I know sent it, and my wife on Thursday but Fred told me to call Mike but he wasn't in. 
  
  3. Taking legal advice from the company lawyer or the company.   Their lawyer is their lawyer appointed to represent the company not help you.  
  
  4. Negotiation problems   Generally you should begin with a claim for all your damages and be willing to make some modest concessions.  Pro ses can be too difficult refusing any compromises, or too easy quickly giving up most of their claim.   Start with full value, and reduce your claim when there is progress.  
  
  5. Not being able to prove basic elements of your claim.  If say the vehicle needs an engine, you will need at minimum a repair order diagnosing engine failure and the cost to repair and in court, you may need the mechanic to testify.  
  
  6. Not adding deception claims.  Some states provide additional damages for deception so be prepared to present claims for consumer fraud or deceptive practice.  
  
  7. Limiting the case to the policy language-fighting on their turf.  The company says here's the policy, it doesn't cover this.  Consider these arguments, 
  
  
• Reasonable expectations of the buyer  The “theory of reasonable expectations places substance over form and seeks to avoid frustration of an insured's reasonable expectations as to insurance coverage.”  Carper v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 758 F.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1985).  In analyzing the meaning of an insurance policy provision, it is necessary to determine the reasonable expectations of the average insured.  If there is a reasonable basis for a difference of opinion as to the meaning of an insurance policy, the language at issue would be deemed to be ambiguous and thus interpreted in favor of the insured.  Federal Ins. Co. v. International Business Machines Corp, 942 N.Y.S.2d 432 (2012).   
  
  
• Brochures and Advertisements form expectations Try tointroduce as evidence advertisements, brochures, or other materials from the warranty company.   
  
  
• Exclusions in Fine print  Note the prominence of items showing coverage and smallness of disclaimers (where applicable).  Check your state's Plain Language Law or service plan statute to see if that complies with the law.  
   
  
  
  8. Not suing the dealer also  Consumer contacts the dealer who says any problems are for the warranty company, the warranty company claims some exclusion such as preexisting problem.  You're better to have both dealer and warranty company in the case and let them fight it out or jointly 

         9. Fruitless Cross-examination  Clients tend to like cross-examination but frequently it bolsters one side's story.  Ask   
         factual or other questions where the answer will help you or show the witness as being evasive.  Am I correct that the 
         exclusion you claim is in much smaller print that the main body showing items covered.  Was this done to mislead the 
         consumer, you could have put the entire body in the same print if your goal was to accurately inform the consumer
         about the extent of coverage.