Walter's Roofing

Thank you for your response, but the business unit acknowledged all concerns the member had. Thank you again!

Complaint: 12567205
I am rejecting this response because:Your membership indicated that there is unlimited milage for towing to closest provider etc. The letter that was sent to me regarding the reason for cancellation of my membership indicated that you decided to cancel based on a higher than average usage. Had your company indicated that there was any parameters or recommended limitations for usage I could have made better decisions on when to utilize the service so as to continue my relationship with your company. FOR EXAMPLE: As opposed to indicating unlimited milage for tows (and then cancelling my membership for "above average" usage) you could say 4 tows with less than x amount of miles for each membership year. That way in times of when I am reaching out for service I can determine if it is a worthwhile usage of my service or if alternate services are better so as to not over utilize my member benefits. Its like saying its an all you can eat buffet and kicking me out after my third plate as opposed to saying Three Plate Buffet.   
Regards,
Alana Aviel

The business unit has attempted to contact member for full refund of paid membership ($79.95) and the initial tow provided by the police office. Please follow up with a call back for a copy of towing receipt. Thank you.

Thank you for contacting us regarding your experience. We believe in having a high level of customer service and would like to apologize for the service you received. We will look into this matter and make improvements going forward. We have issued you a check refund for the cancellation fee that...

will be sent to the address on file. You should expect to receive the refund in 2 to 4 weeks.

At no point in the initial phone call with our sales agent was it ever disclosed that the vehicle was used for any car share service, if it was disclosed we would have not enrolled the policy. The first mention of this was on April 11th, at that time we cancelled the policy and issued a refund because we cannot provide coverage. If needed, we can provide a copy of the phone conversation with our sales agent.

We apologize that you did not agree with our reason for denial or resolution. At this time we have no choice but to stand by the denial as no mechanical failure has been demonstrated. If you are able to demonstrate a mechanical failure that caused the gummed up carbonator we would be happy to review the claim again. I have processed the refund fee you were charged and you should see it in a few days.

Our records indicate that the customer spoke to a member of our roadside assistance team on March 14, 2016 and the complaint was resolved at that time.  The Roadside representative apologized for the poor service and addressed the customer's concerns.   We have refunded the...

full amount paid for service ($139.95) and extended the customer's membership by one year.  New membership cards will arrive at the address on the customer's account in the next 2-3 weeks.

Business stands by initial response.

Transit Pros offered Mr. W[redacted] a $50 goodwill reimbursement.   The initial call for service took place at 12:39am North Carolina time.   The notes in the request indicate that Mr. W[redacted] advised that he felt the tire price was high and he would not pay it.  The tire in question...

“Goodyear G661 HSA 255/70R22.5 in an H Load Range” was being billed at $499.86.  Our research indicates that this tire (and it’s replacement the Goodyear Endurance RSA 255/70r/22.5 H) can be found online in prices ranging from $471.99(SimpleTire.com) to $516.92(SimpleTire.com).  Please keep in mind that this would require waiting for the tires to arrive via shipping and is not on the side of the road at 12:39am.  While examples of other brands of tires in this Size and Load Range can be found at a lower cost our program is built through National Pricing with major tire manufacturers.  Our roadside assistance programs primary concern is member safety and we attempt to provide assistance for roadside emergency’s in a timely manner.     At approximately 1:11am Mr. W[redacted] advised that he was unwilling to pay for the tire and services being offered.  Once the coverage and charges had been confirmed with member services Mr. W[redacted] advised that he did not have a credit card to pay for the service and would pay the tech with cash, approximately 1:45am.  We advised that we could not secure service using a cash payment and sometime between 1:45am and 1:50am Mr. W[redacted] advised he did have a credit card and was willing to pay the members portion of the service and the tire.   This complaint states that the Mr. W[redacted] was ok with the $165 labor fee roadside and addresses the cost of the tire.  We feel that the $50 refund offered by Transit Pros covers any difference in the price of the same tire and taxes associated.  Mr. W[redacted] would need to advise that he accepts the $50 for the refund to be processed.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11516580, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
I want to also thank the individual that contacted me and explained what could have possibly taken place with the phone calls to their service centers and how it should have been handled.
Regards,
T[redacted]

We have reviewed this with our dispatch provider’s Damage Complaint Team who provided the feedback below.  In addition they address the member staying overnight at the gas station in the beginning of the response.
 
Please see details of Roadside Assistance handling of reported damage....

Note too that denial was not due to 90 day expiration.  A review of dispatch supports that customer agreed to the overnight wait for service, payment was approved and the police were engaged to ensure family was safe until morning rescue.
 
After investigation and review of documentation that included consideration of provided invoice, The damages team did not assign accountability to the tow provider.  Research confirmed that knowledge of the rear wheel bearings condition had not been determined and advance knowledge could not be expected.  Good Sam Roadside Assistance also verified that the mobile mechanic diagnosis was accurate according to member statement and invoice provided that displayed proper diagnostic and handling of front wheel bearing.  In keeping with complaint escalation process, the customer had been contacted 3 times to deliver this message. Member acknowledged the denial with understanding.
 
Final Summary:
 
Damage Analyst Feedback: I called the customer the day after the receipt of complaint on 3/4/16. I spoke with the member directly on her cell phone which due to poor reception took 3 disconnected calls to cover all concerns.  Customer confided that she had to make the decision to pull over by an Exxon gas station in Livingston, VA because she was experiencing a noise and was unsure what or where it was coming from. The customer shared that arrangements had been made for a Mobile Mechanic to come out to inspect. She states that the mobile mechanic arrived and spent 5 hours and determined that the front brakes were bad along with the front wheel bearings and charged her for the diagnosis in keeping with Good Sam Program guidelines.
Apology was extended to member for the challenge in securing a tow provider able to accommodate her vehicle type in this area late at night to desired destination.  A review of dispatch supports that Assist Reps escalated this call, reached out to local providers but was only able to obtain commitment for service early next morning.  Contact was made with the police with respect to family safety.  The police approved the overnight stay.
A thorough review of this dispatch proves that provider carried out tow accurately to ensure safe vehicle transport. When the driver arrived with a wheel lift he clearly stated he did not want to chance any accidents with overpass clearances. While traveling to the destination only minutes away the rear wheel bearing gave out, but seizing and damage the rear end of the vehicle. The tow operator pulled over with the vehicle secured to his truck and requested a flatbed to carry the disabled vehicle the rest of the way since they were now off the highway.
 
The customer did not report the damages until the vehicle was repaired at her expense.  In our conversation the customer claimed that Good Sam was responsible for sending a Mobile Mechanic that misdiagnosed the vehicle, and thought the vehicle would have been ok if it was transported by flatbed only. I explained to the customer that I agreed with the decision of the towing company as there was no knowledge on their behalf that the rear wheel bearings were bad and that there was a concern for the overpass clearances.  
 
Explanation was provider that provider cannot be held responsible for needed repairs noting damage was pre-existing and would not be the result of a short distance tow. Customer was unable to comment on the time since vehicle had been inspected. Results of research determined that damages to the rear wheel bearing were pre-existing due to a lack of maintenance until the noise became unbearable to the customer. The customer did not give any opportunities for the Mobile Mechanic to come and inspect the damages and did not inform Good Sam Roadside until the damages were repaired 92 days later.
 
After investigation and review of documentation that included consideration of invoice The damages team did not assign accountability to the Tow provider.  Research confirmed that knowledge of the rear wheel bearings condition had not been provided and could not be expected.  Good Sam Roadside Assistance also verified that Mobile Mechanic diagnosis was accurate according to member statement and invoice provided that displayed proper handling of front wheel bearing.
 
During the denial process, the analyst contacted the customer who acknowledged the denial with understanding.

Spoke to member, apologized for poor service and informed that this had been addressed with the agent.  Paid full amount requested for service call to replace tires, $169.50 and extended membership 1yr (sent cards).  Member advised of timeframes for check receipt and new cards.

After a thorough review of the claim submitted by the customer, it has been determined that the failure was an oil leak which caused the turbo failure along with the thrust arm and bushings failures.  These were all long term failures which would constitute as a pre-existing condition and would...

not be covered by the policy. 
 
Our records show that the customer enrolled in a policy on their BMW 335i online on May 5, 2015 at the time they reported their odometer reading at 66,155.  The customer contacted us twice to update the enrollment mileage with the most recent time updating it to 66,855. However, a Carfax report showed that the customer had taken the car to get an oil leak serviced on May 1, 2015 with a reported mileage of 67,578. At the time of the turbo, thrust arm, and bushing failures they had an elapsed mileage of 473. All of the failures reported would have been caused by a long term failure and would not have occurred within 473 miles. There was also evidence shown to the inspector, which we sent out, that shows there was excessive oil residue which would also indicate long term failure. The policy’s Terms and Conditions are very specific regarding repairs that are eligible for coverage. It is stated in the policy under “GENERAL EXCLUSIONS”:
 
• Any pre-existing problems that are present prior to the purchase of this Coverage whether known or unknown. The condition of the covered part(s) in question will be assessed to determine time of initial breakdown.
 
In light of this information we have no choice but to stand behind our Claims Administrators, and will not be able to provide the customer with any further assistance toward the claim.

In light of this complaint, we reviewed the member's phone conversation with our agent. Our agent did inform the member that we do not cover vehicles used for commercial use. At no point in the conversation was Uber or any other car share service ever mentioned. Since we cannot...

provide policies for vehicles used for commercial use, per the terms and conditions, we cancelled the policy and issued a full refund of premiums paid not taking into account the previous claim paid out.

Complaint: 12205000
I am rejecting this response because:The company did not address the issue of not assisting with finding someone to come help and they did not even say they have multiple computer glitches which prevent them from helping people they recruit to join their ranks. They just sent me my new cards for 3 years of service and they did not even spend a a dime assisting us. It would have been nice if they had even investigated the issue and said they have a glitch that puts someone else's name and information in for the person calling company fails to accept they have computer issues. 
Regards,
V[redacted]

Complaint: 11311512
I am rejecting this response because:
Although they can quote their legal fine print verbatim, it doesn't change my contention that there is a shoe waiting to drop and they only point it out when it's too late.  The claims were not excessive.  A simple heads up prior to the third claim would have alleviated an undesirable situation.  It remains a bad business practice in the eyes of the customer and I will continue to characterize them accordingly in my circle of influence.  I will put the $70.00 towards my replacement policy with AAA who welcomed my business.
Regards,
T[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12324337, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
I would like to personally thank the Revdex.com for stepping in and getting this issue resolved for me. Had it not been for the Revdex.com, I would still be "on hold" waiting for someone to answer the phone, instead after the Revdex.com stepped in, the Company called me and apologized for the issue I had with them.
Regards,
C[redacted]

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns related to his RV insurance policy. Please note that the insurance policy involved in this transaction is underwritten by National General Insurance. On August 15, 2016, a renewal offer was issued to the client for...

the policy period effective September 20, 2016 to September 20, 2017. The renewal offer was issued by mail and included a premium statement and declarations page that reflected the total annual premium. In addition, a courtesy e-mail was sent to the client indicating the renewal offer was now available. To protect the client’s privacy, the premium amount is not shown within the e-mail itself, but instead provides a link so that the client may securely log in to view the renewal offer online if he desires. The client also expressed concern that his premium increased effective with this renewal offer. A thorough review of the renewal premium confirms it is accurate based on current rates. The premium increase for the renewal offer is attributed to a combination of rating factor changes due to the aging of the policy, such as the vehicle age factor and driver class factors. We acknowledge that the client has not had any chargeable accidents or violations, and the policy is rated accordingly. While we understand the client’s frustration with the increase in premium, we strongly believe that the premium is competitive. It is important to note that this policy provides coverage that is very important for the client’s needs, including Replacement Cost Coverage, which other insurance carriers likely cannot offer due to the age of the motorhome. While we do not have access to the customer’s new policy the large difference in premium between The National General Insurance and the Progressive policy is more than likely attributed to the lack of Replacement Cost Coverage.

Complaint: 11790889
I am rejecting this response because: The response is another lie. At no time was there ever a goodwill payment ever sent to me or returned by me. What I wanted and still want is both of my policies cancelled and refunded. In fact one of your Camping World finance guys told me last week that no refund can be sent to me but only to the lien holder of the trailer loan. So this crap about sending me a check for $737 is absolute BS. Its continued lies like this that make your company despicable. So you mentioned some pretty specific information about my Tire and Wheel policy; that's nice because I have been asking for an actual policy for months and have never received one for either the GAP or the Tire & Wheel. The Camping World Finance guy told me that they would be mailed to me...another lie. All of I've had since the purchase was a brochure, in which it states that tire blowouts are covered. This was denied by your company. So are you refusing to cancel my policies and refund my money? I will not relent! Your company lied to me and I want my money back. I just can't see how anyone doing there RV research could read not only this complaint but the many other blogs and numerous other RV Forums out there and still do business with you.
Regards,
R[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11462886, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
I accept their offer to go ahead and process the claim for the full amount and issue me a check for such amount.
Regards,
[redacted]