Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2017/05/01) */
The insurance claim at the insured's home came in from *** formerly from *** which is an independent adjusting firmBack in 2013, ice damming was happening at several locations all over the Moncton areaWith ice
damming claims the unfortunate thing is that the work can only be done in the spring as if the issue re-occurs the insurance company will state it as a second claimIn this case the reason why the work was only started late May is due to the previous statement
The insurance adjuster and Winmar, as standard practice, the work that needs to be performed is evaluated and estimate of repairs is prepared and sent to the insurance company for review and approvalIn this case, the affected areas were every room except the living room and entry wayA copy of the scope will be attached for review as the work stated on the estimate is the only work that is doneThe work done to *** was started and finished in a timely manner ( May - June )All claims performed can take less time than others due to all different circumstances, in this case - weeks is normal
In this specific claim, we received a call from the insured a few years after the claim was finished and they advised that the ceiling in the kitchen had crackedWe then advised that we would send someone to repair and paint the ceiling even if it was a couple year after the date of loss
A year after the second repair, we received another call requesting the repair as the ceiling cracked a second time at the same locationWe then sent the drywall company to repair it at no extra cost yet another timeWe feel as this house was constructed in 2-different time and adding additions, would be the cause of the movement and to crack the ceiling
During our meeting in order to get an authorization form signed the insured stated that they wanted to unpack and reset the contents ( As stated on the authorization form attached )
The work performed by Winmar which the insured is stating that "did not do half the work that they said had done" was completed as per the estimate provided and paid by the insurance company
The insured is stating mildew in the living room, no work was performed in the living room as per the estimate once again provided to the insurance company
The only work performed in the insured's residence is directly related to the damages caused by the water only
We have supporting documents that we would like to submit confirming what was required and what was performedScope and authorization form
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 13, 2017/05/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
NO I we dont trust them should they be charged for fraud ??? The 12inch insulation that they claim and that they were paid for was not put in.The maximiun was 4toinches and in the bathroom none at all.It was mentioned that the only room that was not damaged by the ice damage was the living room and the entrance.why did they refuse to touch the second bed room ??i I did not say there was mildew in the living room I asked if there was a Possibility if there could be mildew.At the time it was a man name *** that was assigned to this job.He went out side came back in with a small machine dropped it on the floor picked it back and said the machine no longer works then pointed it towards the living room wall and said no mildew.Why was I not given the option on who I wanted to do the repairs?i made lot of calls to winmar about the ceiling at one time I waited at least months for them to call me back.they were not returning my calls so I had to call again I found that they let this drag way to long.They are replying that it was only after a few years no in early I called *** a numorous number of times because it was so cold in the house his reply was nothing he could do.I find fingers are been pointed at Wananisa its not Wananisa that did the repairs.In October of I had major health issues and had surgery in early 2015.I have more then enough picture to prove my case.It was mentioned quite a bit to have certain things fixed that I should put a second claim.I said noI beleave I was treated fairly and I beleave we and asking for much
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2017/05/15) */
In response to the last comment sent from ***, she is referring to the living rooms and other rooms that possibly had mildew "that we refused to touch"As stated on a previous explanation, the damages were assessed and an estimate of repairs was presented to the insurance company to which was approved
The insured is stating that the insulation was lacking and was not installed properlyOnce the issue was presented to us we have since checked the attic to see if insulation was missing and we have discovered that yes some insulation was missing in the bathroom ceilingThe insured had some concerns of also the vapour barrier not being sealed, we have sent one of our employees to check all of the areas that were touched by our company and to repair any of the areas of concernOnce all of the areas of concern were looked at, we have then called in Mike's insulation to add bloinsulation throughout the entire attic to give these customers R-throughout the attic ( Even areas not related to the claim)We did this to make sure that the issue of insulation was corrected and completed to the insureds satisfactionPlease be advised that this is not the insurance company concurring these cost but our company to go the extra mile to put this issue to bedWe feel that we have been more than fair in order to rectify the issues
Once the insulation was completed we agreed that some ceilings might have nail pops due to having people in the attic to perform the work and we advised the insured that we would send our painter to repair and nail pops related to the work and then paint the ceilings in questionOnce the work was done in the attic, nail pops did happen and we scheduled our painter to go on site to repair the deficienciesBefore going on site we were all on board including the insurance company for that matter that we were ONLY repairing and painting the ceilings in question onlyUpon arriving on site, *** insisted that some walls needed to be painted and advised our painters that if we were not going to paint the walls that she was insisting that we could leave her premisesWith that being said, our painters left the job site and returned to our officeThe job description was agreed prior to going on site and *** decided to alter the work therefore the remaining work has not been completedPlease let me add that *** was also disrespectful to our staff, we have only been cooperative in order to rectify the issues raised by our insuredsMr*** was our point of contact during the whole claim to which he has been more than fair and respectful
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/03/17) */
Claim was originally dated back Dec 14, 2010 from tree that fell on the house. Insurance company covered the plywood repair from the tree that fell and replaced the lower slope front and back side of the roof. Chimney was also in rough shape...
to which the insurance paid to repair it. Insured at the time was asked if he wanted to have the upper portion of the roof replaced at the same time which he refused. With that said we had to weave the lower section of the roof into the old and worn out top section. Roofer asked if insured wanted anything repaired as the roof was open and refused. With that said the only work that was performed was the work authorized by the insurance company . The estimate includes removal and replacement of the 3-1 roofing shingles on the front and back of the lower section, repair of the chimney, and replacement of the damaged gutter. The insurance company has not paid for the replacement of the flashing which we have not touched and if the flashing was installed wrong it was done by the previous roofer. We are not aware of who installed the tar around the valley and along side the house however the tar allows water to enter as it acts as a dam. Upon our second inspection dated back in 2015, we reported the damages to the insurance company to which they denied the damages related to the scope of work that we have performed. At that time if the insured would of reacted on repairing the damages knowing the fact that the insurance company was not covering the damages, mold would not be an issue today. Its for sure not repairing the issue two years later mold could of appeared and extra work would be needed. On the report provided by the insured, it states that [redacted] is commenting on the flashing was not replaced and that the flashing that was replaced was done improperly, please note that we have not replaced any flashing.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2017/05/01) */
The insurance claim at the insured's home came in from *** formerly from *** which is an independent adjusting firmBack in 2013, ice damming was happening at several locations all over the Moncton areaWith ice
damming claims the unfortunate thing is that the work can only be done in the spring as if the issue re-occurs the insurance company will state it as a second claimIn this case the reason why the work was only started late May is due to the previous statement
The insurance adjuster and Winmar, as standard practice, the work that needs to be performed is evaluated and estimate of repairs is prepared and sent to the insurance company for review and approvalIn this case, the affected areas were every room except the living room and entry wayA copy of the scope will be attached for review as the work stated on the estimate is the only work that is doneThe work done to *** was started and finished in a timely manner ( May - June )All claims performed can take less time than others due to all different circumstances, in this case - weeks is normal
In this specific claim, we received a call from the insured a few years after the claim was finished and they advised that the ceiling in the kitchen had crackedWe then advised that we would send someone to repair and paint the ceiling even if it was a couple year after the date of loss
A year after the second repair, we received another call requesting the repair as the ceiling cracked a second time at the same locationWe then sent the drywall company to repair it at no extra cost yet another timeWe feel as this house was constructed in 2-different time and adding additions, would be the cause of the movement and to crack the ceiling
During our meeting in order to get an authorization form signed the insured stated that they wanted to unpack and reset the contents ( As stated on the authorization form attached )
The work performed by Winmar which the insured is stating that "did not do half the work that they said had done" was completed as per the estimate provided and paid by the insurance company
The insured is stating mildew in the living room, no work was performed in the living room as per the estimate once again provided to the insurance company
The only work performed in the insured's residence is directly related to the damages caused by the water only
We have supporting documents that we would like to submit confirming what was required and what was performedScope and authorization form
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 13, 2017/05/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
NO I we dont trust them should they be charged for fraud ??? The 12inch insulation that they claim and that they were paid for was not put in.The maximiun was 4toinches and in the bathroom none at all.It was mentioned that the only room that was not damaged by the ice damage was the living room and the entrance.why did they refuse to touch the second bed room ??i I did not say there was mildew in the living room I asked if there was a Possibility if there could be mildew.At the time it was a man name *** that was assigned to this job.He went out side came back in with a small machine dropped it on the floor picked it back and said the machine no longer works then pointed it towards the living room wall and said no mildew.Why was I not given the option on who I wanted to do the repairs?i made lot of calls to winmar about the ceiling at one time I waited at least months for them to call me back.they were not returning my calls so I had to call again I found that they let this drag way to long.They are replying that it was only after a few years no in early I called *** a numorous number of times because it was so cold in the house his reply was nothing he could do.I find fingers are been pointed at Wananisa its not Wananisa that did the repairs.In October of I had major health issues and had surgery in early 2015.I have more then enough picture to prove my case.It was mentioned quite a bit to have certain things fixed that I should put a second claim.I said noI beleave I was treated fairly and I beleave we and asking for much
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2017/05/15) */
In response to the last comment sent from ***, she is referring to the living rooms and other rooms that possibly had mildew "that we refused to touch"As stated on a previous explanation, the damages were assessed and an estimate of repairs was presented to the insurance company to which was approved
The insured is stating that the insulation was lacking and was not installed properlyOnce the issue was presented to us we have since checked the attic to see if insulation was missing and we have discovered that yes some insulation was missing in the bathroom ceilingThe insured had some concerns of also the vapour barrier not being sealed, we have sent one of our employees to check all of the areas that were touched by our company and to repair any of the areas of concernOnce all of the areas of concern were looked at, we have then called in Mike's insulation to add bloinsulation throughout the entire attic to give these customers R-throughout the attic ( Even areas not related to the claim)We did this to make sure that the issue of insulation was corrected and completed to the insureds satisfactionPlease be advised that this is not the insurance company concurring these cost but our company to go the extra mile to put this issue to bedWe feel that we have been more than fair in order to rectify the issues
Once the insulation was completed we agreed that some ceilings might have nail pops due to having people in the attic to perform the work and we advised the insured that we would send our painter to repair and nail pops related to the work and then paint the ceilings in questionOnce the work was done in the attic, nail pops did happen and we scheduled our painter to go on site to repair the deficienciesBefore going on site we were all on board including the insurance company for that matter that we were ONLY repairing and painting the ceilings in question onlyUpon arriving on site, *** insisted that some walls needed to be painted and advised our painters that if we were not going to paint the walls that she was insisting that we could leave her premisesWith that being said, our painters left the job site and returned to our officeThe job description was agreed prior to going on site and *** decided to alter the work therefore the remaining work has not been completedPlease let me add that *** was also disrespectful to our staff, we have only been cooperative in order to rectify the issues raised by our insuredsMr*** was our point of contact during the whole claim to which he has been more than fair and respectful
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/03/17) */
Claim was originally dated back Dec 14, 2010 from tree that fell on the house. Insurance company covered the plywood repair from the tree that fell and replaced the lower slope front and back side of the roof. Chimney was also in rough shape...
to which the insurance paid to repair it. Insured at the time was asked if he wanted to have the upper portion of the roof replaced at the same time which he refused. With that said we had to weave the lower section of the roof into the old and worn out top section. Roofer asked if insured wanted anything repaired as the roof was open and refused. With that said the only work that was performed was the work authorized by the insurance company . The estimate includes removal and replacement of the 3-1 roofing shingles on the front and back of the lower section, repair of the chimney, and replacement of the damaged gutter. The insurance company has not paid for the replacement of the flashing which we have not touched and if the flashing was installed wrong it was done by the previous roofer. We are not aware of who installed the tar around the valley and along side the house however the tar allows water to enter as it acts as a dam. Upon our second inspection dated back in 2015, we reported the damages to the insurance company to which they denied the damages related to the scope of work that we have performed. At that time if the insured would of reacted on repairing the damages knowing the fact that the insurance company was not covering the damages, mold would not be an issue today. Its for sure not repairing the issue two years later mold could of appeared and extra work would be needed. On the report provided by the insured, it states that [redacted] is commenting on the flashing was not replaced and that the flashing that was replaced was done improperly, please note that we have not replaced any flashing.
[redacted]
Owner/Manager
[redacted]