American Professional Chimney & Masonry Service

American Professional Chimney raised our chimney by feet to comply with Fairfax County Code, added a beautiful crown and installed a multi-flue chimney cap They did a great job and their customer service was exemplary I highly recommend American Professional Chimney

Roman Complaint response: Please note that [redacted] has filed a complaint in Civil Court and with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission which addresses the issues surrounding his Revdex.com complaintYou may consider the following response to the Maryland Home Improvement Commission, the response to the Revdex.com complaint as wellShould you require any additional information, please request that information [redacted] , Assistant Commissioner Maryland Home Improvement Commission [redacted] Dear ** [redacted] : I have been retained by American Professional Chimney, Masonry & Home Repair Service, Inc., in reference to MHIC Complaint No [redacted] , made by [redacted] Please enter my appearance on behalf of [redacted] * [redacted] and American Professional Chimney, Masonry & Home Repair Service, Inc., and consider this correspondence the response required pursuant to Business Regulation Article Section 8-212(a)(1) of the Annotated Code of Maryland Please note that ** [redacted] ’s Complaint is untimely filed since it was filed in March when the contract work was completed in November See COMAR (2014) ** [redacted] ’s MHIC Complaint is a burden upon my client, especially considering the ongoing civil litigation in Circuit Court for [redacted] ’s County over these same factual and legal allegations My client has adequate insurance coverage to fully compensate ** [redacted] and his Subrogee, [redacted] Insurance Company, if my client’s work or negligence is proved to be substandard under the applicable duty of care and shown in Court to be the proximate cause of the damages that ** [redacted] alleges A clear and concise answer to each allegation contained in the Complaint: ** [redacted] ’s home was built years (or more) ago and he requested my client to “restore” three fireplaces making them “operable,” for occasional wood ambiance fires, not for home heating, or extended or heavy use ** [redacted] was not quoted the price to bring his fireplaces and chimneys up to current Code standards, nor did he demand that If he had, the quote would have been a substantially greater and would have required significant demolition of the home’s framing surrounding the existing fireplaces There are numerous factors to consider when evaluating a fireplace and chimney that is over years old, including often how much of the surrounding framing to demolish or remove for access to inspect the existing facilities and brickwork There is guess work in knowing what components may be used in the construction that are obstructed from view and cannot be known without an often cost prohibitive demolition and exposure of existing surrounding framing This fire was caused by nails embedded in the existing mortar of the existing brickwork, which were completely obstructed from view to my client, when he inspected the fireplaces and chimneys My client objects to the multifarious nature of the allegations contained in the complainant's correspondence It is difficult to determine what specific allegations are being made by ** [redacted] in reference to the allegedly defective or faulty work performed at his residence It appears that ** [redacted] believes that rather than purchasing the brick mortar and labor to correctly install the components to “restore” three fireplaces and two chimneys to “operable” condition, he bought an insurance policy that he would not have a house fireNotwithstanding, we have attempted to condense and simplify ** [redacted] 's factual allegations as follows: Allegation No- The three fireboxes needed to be rebuilt because the brick and mortar was completely disintegrated American Professional's response - None of the fireboxes needed to be rebuilt Obviously, they would have been rebuilt had they needed to be rebuilt at the time of contracting and work performance The reason they did not need to be rebuilt was that the brick and mortar was not completely disintegrated If ** [redacted] 's allegation was true, neither the fireplaces nor chimneys that they support would have been standing The two fireplaces in the dining room and living room did not contain firebrick My client installed firebrick inside of them, as is specified in the contract The existing brick and mortar in these two fireplaces was not deteriorated and the visible mortar was only slightly deteriorated In the third fireplace located in the dining room, firebrick and mortar were in relatively good condition at the time of work Allegation No- Fire escaped through the bricking and engulfed the house in flames within minutes American Professional's response - ** [redacted] reported that the fire, presumably including flames, was out when ** [redacted] went to bed and that he woke hours later with a house full of smoke Therefore, ** [redacted] 's claimed cause of the fire, that fire escaped through the brick work and engulfed the house, is inaccurate and not a plausible cause for the fire Allegation No- My client left a hole in the smoke chamber which was supposed to have been filled American Professional's response - At the time that my client's work concluded at the house, there were no holes in any of the smoke chambers Any holes existing in the smoke chamber following the fire were likely caused by fire and/or emergency personnel who pried framing from nails that had been imbedded in the mortar between the bricks at the time that the chimney was originally constructed Allegation No- My client admitted to performing work that does not meet current Code American Professional's response - My client did not have a contract to complete repairs that brought the existing chimneys in compliance with current Code requirements My client followed standard industry procedure for repair of exceedingly old chimneys There is no documented procedure, nor any current Code, for repairing or “restoring” a zero clearance firebox The industry standard in making these chimney repairs to ancient chimneys is to add firebrick to the firebox if no firebrick is present The problem with the construction of the home was with the framing which had been attached directly to the chimney and back wall of the fireplace by nails embedded in the mortar between the bricks This is obviously a serious problem when a fireplace is used for extended periods of time and allows heat transfer from the mortar to the framing through the nails However, this construction method of hammering framing to nails embedded in mortar was not something that could have been reasonably foreseen by my client My client performed this pursuant to the contract with the homeowner and properly performed all work quoted to make the fire places “operable.” Leveling out of the corbelling on one side of the smoke chamber to enhance the draft of the chimney was not performed This procedure was not mandatory at the time the chimney was constructed and this chimney had been reported by the complainant to have been drafting well at the time of contracting and performance Standard masonry mortar used in firebox construction was used to install the firebrick within the fireplace The firebrick and mortar showed no signs of significant deterioration after use, nor after the house fire, and, therefore, the alleged deterioration could not have been a contributing factor to the house fire Allegation No- My client does not have adequate insurance to cover ** [redacted] 's claim American Professional's response - My client maintained appropriate insurance to adequately compensate ** [redacted] fully and completely in aggregate for all damages he is able to prove in Court against my client There are two $1,000,policies which have been claimed against by ** [redacted] 's filing of a Circuit Court case, together with the filing of the Circuit Court case by his insurance company, [redacted] ***, as Subrogee Liability, including proximate cause, contributory negligence of the complainant and damages are all currently in dispute in the pending litigation before the Circuit Court for [redacted] 's County of Maryland in consolidated Case No [redacted] , which was consolidated together with the Complaint filed by the complainant individually against the licensed contractor A copy of the Home Improvement Contract for the job is attached hereto There were no subcontractors who worked on this job The licensed contractor who agreed with the complainant for performance of the work at his property was [redacted] *** This case does not concern any allegation relating to Workers' Compensation, so I have not supplied the Certificate Please advise me if the Commission requires a Certificate Attached hereto is a copy of my client's current General Liability Insurance Certificate Upon information and belief, the complainant failed to obtain any permits prior to contracting with my client to perform work at his residence Consequently, there are no inspections of the work For ordinary repairs and “restoration” as contracted for, my client at the time had a good faith belief that permits from [redacted] ’s County were not requiredSee [redacted] ’s County Fire Safety Code, Section 11-202(a) (2014) The contractor would agree to participate in formal mediation with the complainant However, any such mediation needs to occur following the resolution and/or trial of the facts being disputed in the consolidated Circuit Court case which pertains to the exact facts which have been disputed by the contractor in the Circuit Court case which have been asserted by the complainant in this matter Attached hereto and incorporated herein are copies of the docket of the Circuit Court case showing that it was filed last fall and is currently pending Finally, attached hereto is the licensed contractor's request to the Maryland Home Improvement Commission to stay its investigation pending discovery and completion of the attached Court case Obviously, the MHIC will have access to records and testimony of the [redacted] 's County Court case, as well as any damage findings and liability findings after the outcome of the Court case The licensed contractor has disputed liability and damages in the Court case, but will certainly comply with any requests for information that the MHIC inspector has from it in the interimShould you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in regard to this matter Sincerely, [redacted] , P.A [redacted] [redacted] cc: ** [redacted] ** [redacted] [redacted] , Esquire Enclosure Call using Skype Send SMS Learn more You'll need Skype CreditNo Skype credit required

American Professional Chimney raised our chimney by 2 feet to comply with Fairfax County Code, added a beautiful crown and installed a multi-flue chimney cap. They did a great job and their customer service was exemplary. I highly recommend American Professional Chimney.

Roman";
letter-spacing:-.15pt;layout-grid-mode:line"> Complaint response:
    Please note that [redacted] has filed a complaint in Civil Court and with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission which addresses the issues surrounding his Revdex.com complaint. You may consider the following response to the Maryland Home Improvement Commission, the response to the Revdex.com complaint as well. Should you require any additional information, please request that information.
[redacted], Assistant
Commissioner
Maryland Home Improvement Commission
[redacted]
Dear **. [redacted]:
            I
have been retained by American Professional Chimney, Masonry & Home Repair
Service, Inc., in reference to MHIC Complaint No. [redacted], made by [redacted].  Please enter my appearance on
behalf of [redacted] and American Professional Chimney, Masonry & Home
Repair Service, Inc., and consider this correspondence the response required
pursuant to Business Regulation Article Section 8-212(a)(1) of the Annotated
Code of Maryland.  
Please note that
**. [redacted]’s Complaint is untimely filed since it was filed in March 2014 when
the contract work was completed in November 2008.  See COMAR 09.08.01.1309.08.01.13 (2014).  **. [redacted]’s MHIC Complaint is a burden upon
my client, especially considering the ongoing civil litigation in Circuit Court
for [redacted]’s County over these same factual and legal allegations.  My client has adequate insurance coverage to
fully compensate **. [redacted] and his Subrogee, [redacted] Insurance Company, if
my client’s work or negligence is proved to be substandard under the applicable
duty of care and shown in Court to be the proximate cause of the damages that
**. [redacted] alleges.         
            1.         A clear and concise answer to each
allegation contained in the Complaint:
**. [redacted]’s
home was built 100 years (or more) ago and he requested my client to “restore” three
fireplaces making them “operable,” for occasional wood ambiance fires, not for
home heating, or extended or heavy use. 
**. [redacted] was not quoted the price to bring his fireplaces and chimneys
up to current Code standards, nor did he demand that.  If he had, the quote would have been a
substantially greater and would have required significant demolition of the
home’s framing surrounding the existing fireplaces.  There are numerous factors to consider when
evaluating a fireplace and chimney that is over 100 years old, including often
how much of the surrounding framing to demolish or remove for access to inspect
the existing facilities and brickwork. 
There is guess work in knowing what components may be used in the
construction that are obstructed from view and cannot be known without an often
cost prohibitive demolition and exposure of existing surrounding framing.  This fire was caused by nails embedded in the existing mortar of the existing
brickwork, which were completely obstructed from view to my client, when he
inspected the fireplaces and chimneys. 
 My client
objects to the multifarious nature of the allegations contained in the complainant's
correspondence.  It is difficult to
determine what specific allegations are being made by **. [redacted] in reference
to the allegedly defective or faulty work performed at his residence.  It appears that **. [redacted] believes that
rather than purchasing the brick mortar and labor to correctly install the
components to “restore” three fireplaces and two chimneys to “operable”
condition, he bought an insurance policy that he would not have a house fire. Notwithstanding,
we have attempted to condense and simplify **. [redacted]'s factual allegations as
follows:
            Allegation
No. 1 - The three fireboxes needed to be rebuilt because the brick and mortar
was completely disintegrated. 
American
Professional's response - None of the fireboxes needed to be rebuilt.  Obviously, they would have been rebuilt had
they needed to be rebuilt at the time of contracting and work performance.  The reason they did not need to be rebuilt
was that the brick and mortar was not completely disintegrated.  If **. [redacted]'s allegation was true, neither
the fireplaces nor chimneys that they support would have been standing.  The two fireplaces in the dining room and
living room did not contain firebrick. 
My client installed firebrick inside of them, as is specified in the
contract.  The existing brick and mortar
in these two fireplaces was not deteriorated and the visible mortar was only
slightly deteriorated.  In the third
fireplace located in the dining room, firebrick and mortar were in relatively
good condition at the time of work. 
            Allegation
No. 2 - Fire escaped through the bricking and engulfed the house in flames
within minutes.
             American
Professional's response - **. [redacted] reported that the fire, presumably
including flames, was out when **. [redacted] went to bed and that he woke hours
later with a house full of smoke. 
Therefore, **. [redacted]'s claimed cause of the fire, that fire escaped
through the brick work and engulfed the house, is inaccurate and not a
plausible cause for the fire.
             Allegation
No. 3 - My client left a hole in the smoke chamber which was supposed to have
been filled.
             American
Professional's response - At the time that my client's work concluded at the
house, there were no holes in any of the smoke chambers.  Any holes existing in the smoke chamber
following the fire were likely caused by fire and/or emergency personnel who
pried framing from nails that had been imbedded in the mortar between the
bricks at the time that the chimney was originally constructed.
             Allegation
No. 4 - My client admitted to performing work that does not meet current Code.
            American
Professional's response - My client did not have a contract to complete repairs
that brought the existing chimneys in compliance with current Code
requirements.  My client followed
standard industry procedure for repair of exceedingly old chimneys.  There is no documented procedure, nor any current
Code, for repairing or “restoring” a zero clearance firebox.  The industry standard in making these chimney
repairs to ancient chimneys is to add firebrick to the firebox if no firebrick
is present.  The problem with the
construction of the home  was with the
framing which had been attached directly to the chimney and back wall of the
fireplace by nails embedded in the mortar between the bricks.  This is obviously a serious problem when a
fireplace is used for extended periods of time and allows heat transfer from
the mortar to the framing through the nails. 
However, this construction method of hammering framing to nails embedded
in mortar was not something that could have been reasonably foreseen by my
client.  My client performed this
pursuant to the contract with the homeowner and properly performed all work
quoted to make the fire places “operable.” 
Leveling out of the corbelling on one side of the smoke chamber to
enhance the draft of the chimney was not performed.  This procedure was not mandatory at the time
the chimney was constructed and this chimney had been reported by the complainant
to have been drafting well at the time of contracting and performance.  Standard masonry mortar used in firebox
construction was used to install the firebrick within the fireplace.  The firebrick and mortar showed no signs of
significant deterioration after use, nor after the house fire, and, therefore,
the alleged deterioration could not have been a contributing factor to the
house fire.
            Allegation
No. 5 - My client does not have adequate insurance to cover **. [redacted]'s
claim.
            American
Professional's response - My client maintained appropriate insurance to
adequately compensate **. [redacted] fully and completely in aggregate for all
damages he is able to prove in Court against my client.  There are two $1,000,000.00 policies which have
been claimed against by **. [redacted]'s filing of a Circuit Court case, together
with the filing of the Circuit Court case by his insurance company, [redacted],
as Subrogee.
 Liability,
including proximate cause, contributory negligence of the complainant and
damages are all currently in dispute in the pending litigation before the
Circuit Court for [redacted]'s County of Maryland in consolidated Case No.
[redacted], which was consolidated together with the Complaint filed by the complainant
individually against the licensed contractor.
             2.         A copy of the Home Improvement Contract
for the job is attached hereto.
             3.         There were no subcontractors who worked
on this job.
             4.         The licensed contractor who agreed with
the complainant for performance of the work at his property was [redacted].
            5.         This case does not concern any
allegation relating to Workers' Compensation, so I have not supplied the
Certificate.  Please advise me if the
Commission requires a Certificate.
             6.         Attached hereto is a copy of my
client's current General Liability Insurance Certificate.
           7.         Upon
information and belief, the complainant failed to obtain any permits prior to
contracting with my client to perform work at his residence.  Consequently, there are no inspections of the
work.  For ordinary repairs and
“restoration” as contracted for, my client at the time had a good faith belief
that permits from [redacted]’s County were not required. See [redacted]’s County Fire Safety Code, Section 11-202(a) (2014). 
            8.         The contractor would agree to
participate in formal mediation with the complainant.  However, any such mediation needs to occur
following the resolution and/or trial of the facts being disputed in the
consolidated Circuit Court case which pertains to the exact facts which have
been disputed by the contractor in the Circuit Court case which have been
asserted by the complainant in this matter.
            Attached
hereto and incorporated herein are copies of the docket of the Circuit Court
case showing that it was filed last fall and is currently pending. 
Finally,
attached hereto is the licensed contractor's request to the Maryland Home
Improvement Commission to stay its investigation pending discovery and completion
of the attached Court case.  Obviously,
the MHIC will have access to records and testimony of the [redacted]'s
County Court case, as well as any damage findings and liability findings after
the outcome of the Court case.  The
licensed contractor has disputed liability and damages in the Court case, but
will certainly comply with any requests for information that the MHIC inspector
has from it in the interim.
Should
you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in regard
to this matter.
 
                                        ...⇄ Sincerely,
                                                                         [redacted], P.A.
                                                                          [redacted]
 [redacted]
cc:        **. [redacted]
            **.
[redacted]
            [redacted], Esquire
Enclosure       
Call using Skype
Send SMS
Learn more
You'll need Skype CreditNo Skype credit required

Review: APC rebuilt three fireplaces whose work resulted in a house fire almost killing two people. The work was not permitted and mandatory life safety inspections were never performedDesired Settlement: I want APC to permit their work in the future and to address all their prio I permitted work over the last five years

Business

Response:

Complaint response: Please note that [redacted] has filed a complaint in Civil Court and with the Maryland Home Improvement Commission which addresses the issues surrounding his Revdex.com complaint. You may consider the following response to the Maryland Home Improvement Commission, the response to the Revdex.com complaint as well. Should you require any additional information, please request that information.

[redacted], Assistant

Commissioner

Maryland Home Improvement Commission

Dear **. [redacted]:

I

have been retained by American Professional Chimney, Masonry & Home Repair

Service, Inc., in reference to MHIC Complaint No. [redacted], made by [redacted]

[redacted]. Please enter my appearance on

behalf of [redacted]. [redacted] and American Professional Chimney, Masonry & Home

Repair Service, Inc., and consider this correspondence the response required

pursuant to Business Regulation Article Section 8-212(a)(1) of the Annotated

Code of Maryland.

Please note that

**. [redacted]’s Complaint is untimely filed since it was filed in March 2014 when

the contract work was completed in November 2008. See COMAR 09.08.01.1309.08.01.13 (2014). **. [redacted]’s MHIC Complaint is a burden upon

my client, especially considering the ongoing civil litigation in Circuit Court

for [redacted]’s County over these same factual and legal allegations. My client has adequate insurance coverage to

fully compensate **. [redacted] and his Subrogee, [redacted] Insurance Company, if

my client’s work or negligence is proved to be substandard under the applicable

duty of care and shown in Court to be the proximate cause of the damages that

**. [redacted] alleges.

1. A clear and concise answer to each

allegation contained in the Review:

**. [redacted]’s

home was built 100 years (or more) ago and he requested my client to “restore” three

fireplaces making them “operable,” for occasional wood ambiance fires, not for

home heating, or extended or heavy use.

**. [redacted] was not quoted the price to bring his fireplaces and chimneys

up to current Code standards, nor did he demand that. If he had, the quote would have been a

substantially greater and would have required significant demolition of the

home’s framing surrounding the existing fireplaces. There are numerous factors to consider when

evaluating a fireplace and chimney that is over 100 years old, including often

how much of the surrounding framing to demolish or remove for access to inspect

the existing facilities and brickwork.

There is guess work in knowing what components may be used in the

construction that are obstructed from view and cannot be known without an often

cost prohibitive demolition and exposure of existing surrounding framing. This fire was caused by nails embedded in the existing mortar of the existing

brickwork, which were completely obstructed from view to my client, when he

inspected the fireplaces and chimneys.