Winmar Moose Jaw

Complaint[redacted]The situation my son and I are in started with an insurance claim in April of 2013. Our house needed some tear out after ice damming and our adjuster recommended Winmar ([redacted]). During tearout, Winmar scored the vapor barrier of the ceiling, releasing asbestos into our home from the attic. In attempt to dry out our home, admitting the fibers were quite likely asbestos, Winmar used numerous commercial fans and resulted in contaminating the whole house, and all belongings in it (furniture, clothing etc). From there... I insisted samples were sent for testing and they came back positive as asbestos -insurance adjuster said he did not ask Winmar to bid on repairs to the home after I pleaded that they no longer be involved (conflict of interest). Adjuster later admitted to me that he did in fact ask them to submit a quote-Winmar offered to pay me out for damages to our contents, to take pictures of our belongings, & send them to an assessment company -Winmar told me their insurance was cutting a check for me, but that they needed photos of the items before money was released. Winmar did not show at a meeting we had scheduled for photos -winmar did not properly protect the home during construction, clogged the furnace, and furnace quit during winter -Winmar had their technician check the furnace and said the part would be around $300-500, plus labor. I had an independent company check, and the issue was nothing but a plugged filter, due to Winmar's hasty prep work. -because the house had not been cleared with air quality testing after the release of the asbestos, I was unable to check the house, or turn water off at the main valve. Consequently, the home went without heat for a couple of days in the winter, the pipes froze and cracked -roofing inspector and 2 independent contractors stated that there was moisture and mold in the home because Winmar left the home without insulation during the winter. -independent contractor entered the house to investigate and saw Winmar drywalling over wet lumber. There was so much moisture from lack of insulation that a Winmar employee had placed a bucket to catch drops of water. I was not informed of this moisture issue by Winmar. -twice during the winter, I found employees of Winmar had left the doors swinging open, allowing the frigid air in. -Winmar did not follow protocol after asbestos removal. They did not do air testing prior to reconstruction, nor did they allow me or the adjuster an opportunity for walk through prior to construction, as they had promised. Consequently, we have no idea what they covered up -I enlisted a company for required air testing which Winmar refused to pay me back for -Winmar tested air, contrary to strict regulation, without leaving containments up to acquire an accurate read -independent contractor checks attic, still much vermiculite remains, removal by Winmar is incomplete, despite $20,000 asbestos removal bill. -Winmar employees entered my home without authorization after I told them that they were no longer on the job, and their services were no longer needed. Door left wide open. -construction that Winmar did do is less than acceptable; drywall not attached to 2x4s, so the walls move, placed so crooked that I am unable to open kitchen cupboard doors, electrical work doesn't meet code -after nearly a week of trying to get hold of Winmar to move the contaminated belongings (that I've stored separately for a year, and no longer have the storage place available), they say they don't have time for it.Desired SettlementReplacement cost compensation for soft contents ingestible belongings and surfaces in the home, which specialists in the field recommend disposing of,.as there is no way to test their safety after asbestos contamination.-Winmar to pay for damages incurred to belongings And property-compensation for lost wages, as I've been off work on stress leave due to this debacle- payment for separate company to tear down and properly complete work Winmar did- reimbursement for my expenses (Air quality test, storage, moving of items, rent, etc)Business Response Winmar did not breech any codes, regulations or legislation during our duties on site. The vapour barrier was not scored or cut during the demo for the ice damming loss. There was a pre-existing open of the vapour barrier in the north east corner of the room. Demo continued in a delicate nature not to disturb the material once discovered, this was an unforeseen finding found during the course. Yes the material above was asbestos containing. The material did test positive. The house was not contaminated in any way. Vigorous air sampling was done to prove this prior to abatement of this material. Air sampling was completed after the abatement and the sealing of the non-living space was complete to show the abatement was successful. All testing completed by a 3rd party, all results passed.[redacted] did contact and hire Winmar for the work required, not the insurer or adjuster. Note her file was passed to an independent adjuster for handling. If she didn't want us in her house any further, she shouldn't have hired us. [redacted] Winmar does not ever offer a large cash settlements. We followed proper work ethics and filed a claim with our liability insurer to start the process in the event there was an exposure. I did in fact request documentation and cataloging of the contents in question in order to expedite the procedures in the event that there was an exposure. With the results showing there was NEVER an asbestos exposure, our liability insurer stated there was no claim against Winmar.Regarding the furnace, it was discovered to be not operating, we contacted a completely independent company to attend after hours and on a weekend to see if the plumbing company could get it fired up. This was not an employee of Winmar nor did Winmar have anything to gain from the outcome. The house was completely sealed on the main level, there was no debris found in the ducting to lead to the possibility of dust from the work being performed to be the resultant of the dirty filter if that was the cause. The timeline in which [redacted] states she could not enter the house, this was due to her neglect to even make Winmar aware that there was question of an issue or possibility of an exposure. Winmar was not notified for almost 6 months, once notified we proceeded immediately in co-ordinating the required steps to move forward. Winmar should have been made aware immediately. Any events occurring during that 6 months was the neglect of [redacted] had 3 additional losses since the date of the first one, all in which she never contracted anyone to clean up or take care of. Our services were offered but where declined by [redacted]. Supply line to toilet ruptured, water supply line rupture at the main, second ice damming or roof leak. This is likely what caused the mold, if there is any, to form. Again the neglect of the homeowner to take care of these issues. Winmar did not drywall over wet lumber, did not leave anything wet inside the walls, the second ice damming or roof leak occurred while the reconstruction was undergo. [redacted] and the homeowner were notified immediately of this and work in the immediate area was ceased. The area was opened up again and left for [redacted] and the insurer to view. Noted many times, the side storm door of [redacted] house is faulty, this had been brought to her attention many times, it does not latch and it has never latched properly. Winmar primarily used the back door for entry, and never possessed a key for the side door. As for the so called less than acceptable work completed by Winmar, the work was still in the initial stages, nothing was finalized nor completed. [redacted] Winmar Moose Jaw will make no settlements as [redacted] has requested. Winmar has proven every step that there has been no fault. The investigations from [redacted] insurer, Winmar liability insurer has both came back with the same conclusion that there has been no fault on Winmar's behalf. The resulting outcome of any situation outside of Winmar control is the strict neglect of [redacted] failing to maintain her homeowners due diligence of a property owner. Other losses that may have occurred where that of an act of God and not the resultant of Winmar's actions and for that Winmar takes no responsibility of these.[redacted]