Dealer Loyalty Protection Lawsuit: Mardis, Webb & Complaints

Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc., a New Jersey seller of GAP waivers and extended vehicle service contracts, has been named as a defendant in at least two federal lawsuits and is the subject of a Dealer Loyalty Protection lawsuit record that also includes 140 Better Business Bureau complaints filed over the last three years. The two federal cases are a 2025 breach-of-contract suit in Ohio and a 2022 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case in California that settled through arbitration in 2025.

Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection

Kendle Mardis sued DLP, CEO Richard Benevento, and Car Source Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in 2025. The case, No. 2:25-cv-1237, alleges breach of an insurance contract.¹

The docket has been contentious. In a February 18, 2026 order, the court denied several motions for default judgment filed by Mardis, finding that DLP and Benevento had timely moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court also warned the plaintiff about submitting AI-generated, fabricated case citations in his filings, noting that the conduct violates federal court rules and could draw sanctions.¹

DLP’s own request for sanctions and attorneys’ fees was denied without prejudice because the defendants had not followed Rule 11’s procedural requirements. A separate motion sought conditional dismissal of Car Source Ltd. based on a reported settlement between that defendant and the plaintiff. As of that February 2026 order, Mardis was barred from filing further documents until the pending motions to dismiss were resolved, and the case remained active.¹

Webb v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group

DLP was also a defendant in a TCPA case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Dean Webb et al v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC et al, Case No. 8:22-cv-00699. The suit was filed on March 31, 2022 and assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney.²

The plaintiffs sought statutory damages for unsolicited telemarketing. Co-defendants alongside DLP included Pelican Investment Holdings Group (doing business as AAP), Auto Knight Motor Club, Inc., The Fortegra Group, LLC, Tiptree Inc., Sing for Service, LLC (doing business as MEPCO), and Gus Renny.³ The case was terminated on January 4, 2023 and later reopened. On February 26, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation to dismiss, citing a settlement reached through arbitration.²

The Complaint Pattern Behind the Litigation

DLP holds an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau. Of 140 complaints filed in the last three years, only 6 were marked resolved, and 53 went entirely unanswered.⁴ Customer reviews average 1.38 out of 5 stars across 84 reviews.⁵

Several patterns repeat across the complaints:

After a total loss, consumers say DLP refuses to pay the full gap between the insurance payout and the loan balance, arguing that the primary auto insurer undervalued the vehicle. DLP directs consumers to invoke an “Independent Appraisal Clause” in their insurance policy rather than paying the claim itself.⁶
Consumers describe being asked for extensive paperwork, sometimes 15 to 20 separate documents, only to have claims denied after a deadline passes. Some allege documents were marked received and then later reported missing.⁶
When DLP does pay, the amounts often come in far below expectations. One consumer reported receiving an offer of $1,958.81 instead of the expected $9,256.16, with no clear explanation of how the figure was calculated.⁶
Service contract holders report claims denied for “pre-existing conditions” or lack of prior authorization, and deductibles charged far above what the contract specified. One consumer was billed $1,280 despite a contract stating a $100 deductible.⁴
Consumers report being unable to reach a live representative, receiving generic automated emails, and being refused basic information such as adjusters’ full names or the company’s physical address.⁴

How DLP Responds

In its complaint responses, DLP defends its process. On GAP disputes, the company emphasizes that GAP waivers “are not insurance” and that short payments, deferred payments, and accrued interest can reduce a payout. On undervaluation, it directs the dispute back to the consumer’s primary auto insurer.⁶ A related point matters for anyone weighing legal options: vehicle service contracts sold separately from the vehicle are not warranties under federal law and are not governed by the same rules as manufacturer warranties.⁷

Where to File a Complaint

DLP is headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey, which makes the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance a relevant regulator for insurance-related product disputes. Complaints can be filed through NJDOBI’s Consumer Inquiry and Response Center at 1-800-446-7467, by mail, or through the online portal maintained by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.⁸

For matters that look more like consumer fraud than a coverage dispute, the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs handles complaints at 800-242-5846.⁹ At the federal level, the FTC directs consumers who cannot resolve a dispute with a service contract company to report the issue at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, and notes that if a third-party administrator goes out of business, the dealer who sold the contract may be responsible for fulfilling it.⁷

1
WebsiteDC. Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection Order
2
PACER Monitor. Dean Webb et al v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC et al
3
UniCourt. Webb et al v. Dealer Loyalty Protection Inc et al
4
Better Business Bureau. Dealer Loyalty Protection Inc Complaints
5
Better Business Bureau. Dealer Loyalty Protection Inc Customer Reviews
6
Better Business Bureau. Dealer Loyalty Protection Inc Complaints Page 2
7
Federal Trade Commission. Auto Warranties and Auto Service Contracts
8
New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance. Consumer Information
9
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Office of the Insurance Fraud Prosecutor FAQs