American Technologies Inc

December 30, 2014Via Email: ***Revdex.com*** ** *** ***
*** ** ***Attn : Dispute Resolution ConsultantRe: Complaint ID: *** Complainant: *** ***Dear Sir or Madam:Please allow this written correspondence to serve as affirmation that American Technologies,Inchas received notification that a complaint has been filed by Mr*** ***We are incommunication with Mr*** regarding his concerns and will keep the Revdex.com apprised as to thestatus of the matter.Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 283-***extension ***Respectfully Submitted,*** ***Manager, Administrative Services

*** *** - Please find enclosed American Technologies, Inc.'s response to complaint number ***Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to let me know

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
First of all I would like to express my concerns with the part of my complaint in regards to the reaction as to the way I was treated by several ATI employeesATI's response in regard to this was a short paragraph at the end of their responseI can see from them not addressing that witheach employee by name and merely giving a generic apology shows me that that is the culture of ATI, to treat people like crap.That to me is a serious isue and should have been addressed in depthMoving on I would like to clarify that I did not chose ATI , my insurance company (California Casualty) didHad I known I had a choice early on I would have chosen a more professional , unbiased company do to the work.I have never filed an insurance claim therefore was not really aware of the procedureAs far as the payments go I got an e mail from Patty *** (ATI employee) regarding a final payment I owed of $10,which included $for mold remediation services, water mitigation and removal from the kitchen and dining room, $for Water mitigation in the kitchen (AGAIN?) , ceiling repair $and $for packing strorage and returnIt starts to get confusing when I again get billedand included in that bill is the $for the packing storage and return, seeing as though this was part of the $10,that I paidIn the phone conversation with the adjuster , the ATI employee (*** ***) stated that amount was stilll owedSpeaking of the phone conversation I asked Ms*** if I could get some with more specifics in regard to the charges since it appears that I was being charged for work that was not done by ATI(I had another company do my kitchen cabinets ,floor,dishwasher installation, garbage disposer installation, range hood intallation and countertops)Unfortunately Ms*** choose to do all of the talking and interrupted me each and every time I spoke once the adjuster was off the phone The adjuster did say that some of the checks for ATI also included payment to me for other things such as out of pocket expenses I had incurredI reviewed my copy of the bill from ATI and it showed erroneous charges such as chandelier detach and reset which was never done (and there was no need to)I am also in possession of an ATI invoice for $for packing storage and returnDuring the phone conversation with Ms*** she stated she had no idea how I came up with the figure of $10,and an E mail from her showed me submitting two checks # *** for $and #for $when in fact I mailed one check #*** for $10,After the conversation I researched the e mail and found that Ms*** had provided me with that figureThe confusion in the billing is the reason I requested Ms*** to send me an invoice with specifics on itI was also confused with the certified letter I received from ATI with an invoice stamped "past due"When I phoned and asked why I was not contacted by phone (ATI has both my home and cell numbers) or by email (which again ATI has) prior to this certified letter I was told by *** *** (ATI Employee) that they had no way of contacting meI told her that ATI has my phone numbers and E mail (and had e mailed me a survey twice about their service)She then changed her story and said that no one answered at the phone number providedBoth numbers have vioce mail attached to them and no message was left on either oneI am simple trying to get to the bottom of all this so the billng can be corrected and IF there is any money still owed it can be paidI dont want my insurance company to be double billed anything (storage fees) or over billed for services that did not take place ( chandelier detach and reinstall) and I certainly do not want to pay for services not rendered.
Regards,
*** ***

Enclosed is American Technologies Inc's response to Mrs*** complaint

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***

Dear Sir or Madam:I am in receipt of your written notification dated October 26, 2017, in which ATI was duly notified that a complaint had been filed against our firm. As such, I immediately conducted a thorough review of the matter in an effort to ascertain the facts. They are as follows:On...

September 8, 2017, at 4:30 in the afternoon I received a voicemail from Ms. [redacted] in which she stated that the repairs to her residence were 99% complete; however, she would not affix her signature to the Certificate of Satisfaction or pay until repairs were 100% complete. The items noted as being incomplete were the broken tile repair along with cleaning of her floor. During this message she also referenced that she was going to discuss payment with her adjuster.The assigned project manager and I met with the customer on October 9, 2017. We reviewed the work and I apologized for the delays encountered, specifically for the tile repair. At this meeting Ms. [redacted] did sign our Certificate of Satisfaction with the following exceptions noted: repair tile, clean inside of cabinets (discolored), caulk baseboard in pantry, and hauling of debris. During this meeting, the customer indicated that she would send in a partial payment for services rendered. I asked if I could collect a check that day and she said she would send payment only after she deposited one of the checks. I explained to her that she could hold back her deductible/$500, $1,000, or up to 10%. As of today, November 2, 2017, we have not received any payment from Ms. [redacted] for services rendered although her complaint dated October 22, 2017, references that a partial payment was mailed. We attempted to contact the client three times yesterday to no avail as her system does not allow us to leave a voicemail.We sent someone to address the exceptions except for the tile repair on October 11, 2017. We were not aware that the customer was not satisfied with the cleaning of the cabinetry until we received Ms. [redacted]'s complaint. During that time we were trying to schedule a tile repair contractor. The tile repair contractor has been scheduled for November 17, 2017.There were delays with the job and the tile repair. There were also delays caused by the customer as well due to a delay in material selection; a lack of availability as well as the client's postponement and/or cancellation of scheduled work. Regardless, we are in progress of addressing the exceptions and anticipate the completion of the project by November 17, 2017.Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 682-9200 extension [redacted].

We are in receipt of your written correspondence dated August 7, 2014 and accordingly, wish to 
respond to the complaint Ms. [redacted] filed against our firm. 
American Technologies, Inc. (hereafter referred to as "A TI") was contracted by the homeowner 
of the property located at...

24 Camrosa Place in Sacramento, CA to render construction services as 
a result of water damage sustained from the loss dated December 5, 2011. The services were 
executed in a manner consistent with industry standards and the project was completed in the 
latter part of January, 2012. 
During April of this year, we received a call from Ms. [redacted] during which she stated that she 
was the new owner of the aforementioned property and that she had an issue with her wood 
floor. Upon conclusion of our conversation, we reviewed our records and affirmed that we had in 
fact completed a job at that location which included but was not limited to the installation of an 
engineered wood floor selected by the then property owner for the affected kitchen, front door, 
dining room and hall areas. 
From the onset, we explained to Ms. [redacted] that there may be an issue with the warranty due to 
the change in the property's ownership; however, in an effort to provide outstanding customer 
service we offered to take a look at the problem and assist with an evaluation. Upon receipt of her 
agreement, a convenient time was arranged for all applicable parties to meet and inspect the 
flooring. The initial assessment was held on April 24, 2014 and in attendance was our project 
manager, Mr. [redacted]; a representative from the flooring installer, Mr. [redacted] Bias; Mr. [redacted] 
[redacted] of Residential Design Services as well as the property owner. During the onsite 
evaluation no apparent installation issues were identified; however, it was observed by all that the 
top layer of the flooring was showing signs of delamination and was discolored in certain high 
traffic areas. As a result of same, we contacted the material manufacturer (Galleher Corporation) 
and on May 30,2014 met on site with its representative, Mr. [redacted], and the property 
owner in order to conduct a further evaluation of the floor. Mr. [redacted] 's assessment affirmed 
that the floor finish was dull, the veneer was delaminating and that minor gapping was detected as 
asserted by Ms. [redacted]; however as noted in his observations, a copy of which is herein enclosed 
and is referenced as Exhibit A, it was his professional opinion that such was as a result of 
moisture exposure and not due to a manufacturing defect. I call to your attention Mr. [redacted]'s 
observations which are contained on page two (2) of said attachment and which reads as follows: 
• Delamination -due to excessive moisture 
• Dull finish- cleaning products used per owner 
• Finish popping off/pitted- moisture 
• Edge peaking - moisture 
Upon our receipt of these findings, Mr. [redacted] contacted the property owner to further discuss the 
matter and explain that the installation warranty was no longer valid as a result of two pertinent 
facts: (a) the resulting change in ownership and the warranty's corresponding non-transferability 
as well as (b) the warranty period had elapsed as the flooring had been installed in excess of two 
years prior to Ms. [redacted]'s phone call. In addition, during this conversation he also reiterated that 
the noted deficiencies did not appear to be the result of any type of installation issue and/or 
material defect but rather appeared to have been caused by an incursion of a secondary moisture 
source such as topical cleaning which would be consistent with the location and placement of the 
damage. 
Since our initial conversation with Ms. [redacted] in April, we have been actively engaged in 
communicating with both her and her husband in an attempt to investigate the origination of the 
damage and provide any ready assistance as a result of same. We have provided the 
documentation that we have available including the warranty information as well as the written 
report from the material manufacturer's representative. Based upon the facts as we know 
them, we are unfortunately unable to assist any further as the findings indicate that the damage is 
as a result of a secondary moisture source for which A TI is not responsible. The delamination of 
the top layer(s); a dull finish; a finish that is popping off or pitted and an edge that is peaking 
would be consistent with a moisture source that is being introduced from the top layer downward 
instead of from a bottom layer upward. 
We are sorry that the flooring currently has noted shortcomings; however, such is not as a result 
of a deficiency or error caused by our licensed subcontractor, the manufacturer or ourselves but 
rather appears to have been caused by a topical moisture source as referenced above. As such and 
as a result of the fact that we cannot be held accountable for any moisture source(s) that have or 
might have been introduced by the property owners or other parties retained by them we cannot 
be held liable for the corresponding costs of the floor replacement. 
We regret that the new owners have a difference of opinion and that we could not resolve the 
matter to their satisfaction. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further 
please do not hesitate to contact Mr. [redacted], Regional Manager at (916) 388-2440 
extension [redacted]. 
Respectfully, 
[redacted] 
President

Re: ID# [redacted]  To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for bringing to our attention the issue referenced in your letter dated 4/6/2018 (ID #[redacted]). Please find below and attached information we hope you find useful in reviewing this issue. At the time of our Project Director's inspection on...

June 15, 2017, the customer pointed out two areas of staining on the ceiling - one in the second floor vanity area and the other in a second floor bedroom. The Project Director visibly confirmed stains on ceiling of each area. The Project Director used a device to measure moisture in building materials and placed it on the stains. No elevated moisture was identified. As a courtesy to the customer, the Project Director also measured moisture levels in areas of adjacent drywall. No elevated moisture was detected. Following the inspection, an estimate was created and sent to the carrier. A work authorization and a copy of the same estimate was sent to the customer for review and consideration on June 16, 2017. Copies attached. As you will see, the work authorization, nor the estimate used as an attachment to the work authorization, reflect drywall removal and or drywall replacement. The work authorization and the estimate refer to drywall texture / tape joint repair. The customer signed the work authorization and returned it on 6/23/2017. The work, in accordance with the scope and work authorization were completed on July 6, 2017. The customer acknowledged in writing satisfactory completion of the work on July 12, 2107. Following the customer's signed acknowledgement of satisfactory completion of the work, the customer requested that additional air quality test be performed. As this work was not included in the estimate originally submitted to and agreed upon by the customer, the supplemental work request was submitted to the carrier for approval. The carrier approved and the testing was completed by a third party entity on August 14, 2017. While the complete report is attached, please find below a excerpt for your review and consideration. For this investigation: • No visible mold or noticeable odor(s) were evident; • Reportedly involved/affected building material(s) were "dry" in accordance with utilized moisture meter’s manufacturer’s literature and/or as compared to background reading(s) where possible – defined as one or more moisture reading(s) from unaffected area(s) of the same material(s) at the same time; and • Sampling (air) results indicated that total and/or individual mold spore level(s)/amount(s) were sufficiently similar to or less than those detected in non-affected space(s)/area(s) and/or outdoors (or typically found outdoors) at the time of collection1. Note, sampling results are limited in that they represent mold spore levels at the time of sampling and changes in ventilation, temperature, weather, occupancy, equipment, contaminant sources, products used, and other conditions may cause variations in sampling results. As set out above, no unsafe airborne mold spores levels and/or condition(s) were discovered in the 2nd floor nursery/bedroom and nursery/bedroom vanity areas of the residence. No further remediation work is necessary in the subject area(s) as of the date of this report. If water/moisture intrusion is not addressed in a timely manner, mold growth/proliferation can occur in as quickly as 24-48 hours. Identification and repair of water/moisture intrusion source(s) is paramount in combating microbial growth and/or contamination.While ATI has completed all work in accordance with the contract and scope agreed upon by the customer and believes payment is due, we take all customer concerns very seriously. As such, following receipt of your 4/6/2018 letter, we reached out to the customer, discussed the situation and in a good faith gesture, offered to expand the scope of work - including, but not necessarily limited to setting up containment barriers with negative pressure in the bedroom and vanity, making inspection cuts, visibly inspecting the ceiling cavities, then patching / painting the appropriate areas. The customer accepted the offer and work will start on or about 4/25/18. Thank you again for bringing this to our attention and working with ATI. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us directly. Kindest professional regards,  [redacted] Regional Manager 858-530-2400 x [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your...

reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The details of ATI's response contradicts the actual events that occurred, more lies.  ATI has not attempted to call me or resolve the issue of the bricks. 
Regards,
[redacted]

November 13, 2014 
Via Electronic Mail: [redacted] 
Ms. [redacted] 
Revdex.com 
4747 Viewridge Avenue #200 
San Diego, CA 92123-1688 
Re: Complaint ID #[redacted] 
Complainant: [redacted] 
Dear Ms....

**: 
We are in receipt of your written correspondence received electronically on October 28, 2014 
and accordingly, wish to advise that we have been in contact with the complainant since that 
day in an effort to address her concern. 
We will keep you apprised as to developments in the matter. However, in the interim, should 
you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 283-9990 extension 
[redacted] 
Respectfully submitted, 
[redacted]
Manager, Administrative Services

November 5, 2014 
Via Electronic Mail: [redacted] 
Ms. [redacted] 
Revdex.com 
4747 Viewridge Avenue #200 
San Diego, CA 92[redacted]-1688 
Re: Complaint ID #[redacted] 
Complainant: Mr. [redacted] 
Dear Ms. **: 
We...

are in receipt of your written correspondence received electronically on October 23, 2014 
and accordingly, wish to respond to the complaint Mr. [redacted] filed against our firm. 
American Technologies, Inc. (hereafter referred to as "ATI") was contracted by Mr. [redacted] 
and/or his representative to render emergency services; mold remediation; contents pack out 
as well as reconstruction services at his property as a result of water damage sustained on 
April10, 2014. Prior to engaging in any of the aforementioned work at Mr. [redacted]'s 
residence, he was provided a Work Proposal and Authorization to review upon which was 
delineated either the services to be rendered at the residence as well as the respective cost or 
where the work to be performed was specified, a scope of work or estimate incorporated by 
mention and this applicable document upon which the corresponding price was identified was 
provided in tandem with this contract. (Said documents are herein enclosed and are 
referenced as Exhibit A.) Accordingly, Mr. [redacted] was knowledgeable as to the services which 
he contracted with ATI to perform as well as the ensuing amount that would be owed to ATI 
upon completion of each of the four segments of its work. 
After ATI completed a respective stage of its work an invoice was generated by its Accounts 
Receivable department upon which was identified the services to which it corresponded as 
well as the resultant sum due. By the end of June, three separate invoices had been submitted 
to Mr. [redacted] for his subsequent review. These invoices were dated May 22, 2014; May 27, 
2014 and June 30, 2014 and corresponded to mold remediation ($3,316.98); water 
mitigation/emergency services ($1,550.54) and contents pack out ($4,222.50), respectively. (A 
copy of same is hereafter incorporated by reference and is identified as Exhibit B.) 
An ATI representative did contact Mr. [redacted] to discuss payment for services rendered as he 
states within his complaint; however, the interaction that ensued in July and August was solely
for the purposes of procuring payment of the aforementioned services for which he had been 
billed. The structure work was not incorporated in the discussion as the invoice for same had 
not yet been submitted to his attention given that these services were ongoing. It was not 
until August 13, 2014 that an invoice in the amount of $10,910.53 was generated and sent to 
Mr. [redacted]'s attention for payment. (Said document is hereafter attached is identified as 
Exhibit c.) The sum identified thereon was a result of the initial contract value of $10,255.55 as 
well as an additional sum of $655.00 for kitchen repairs which was noted in the Work Proposal 
and Authorization dated June 3, 2014 and subsequently executed by Mr. [redacted]. (This 
corresponding document is referenced hereafter and identified as Exhibit D.) All invoices 
submitted for payment were for work performed and for work approved and contracted by 
Mr. [redacted] for ATI to perform. At no time was Mr. [redacted] billed for services that we did not 
render. 
A teleconference was held on October 24, 2014 at which Mr. [redacted]; the assigned adjuster 
from California Casualty, [redacted], and an ATI representative, [redacted] 
were present. The intent of the meeting was to reconcile ATI's billing with the funds issued by 
the insurance carrier and determine whether any outstanding monies were still owed either 
on the part of the insurance carrier or Mr. [redacted]. As discussed and as memorialized in an 
email sent to Mr. [redacted] from [redacted] on Monday, October 27, 2014, (a 
copy of which is herein enclosed and noted as Exhibit E), the following sums were billed to Mr. 
[redacted], our client, by ATI : $3,316.98 (mold remediation); $1,550.54 (water 
mitigation/emergency services); $4,222.50 (contents pack out); and $10,914.85 
(reconstruction services) for a grand total of $20,004.87. Mr. [redacted] had submitted payment 
to ATI via personal check number [redacted] in the amount of $10,423.40. This left the amount of 
$5,416.12 as owed to ATI for services rendered once Mr. [redacted] endorsed the check that 
would be forthcoming from the insurance carrier for contents pack out as noted below. 
Accordingly, Mr. [redacted] was duly apprised that this was the amount that was owed to ATI to 
clear the outstanding balance. (This sum included the two deductibles of $500.00 for which 
Mr. [redacted] was personally responsible.) Relative to funds paid to Mr. [redacted] by the 
insurance carrier, the adjuster had issued joint checks made payable to Mr. [redacted] and ATI in 
the following amounts which he subsequently cashed: $5,058.08 (only $3,316.98 to be used to 
pay ATI); $1,550.54; $9,316.91 and $655.09 for a total of $14,839.52. The amount of 
$4,222.50 was determined to be unpaid by the insurance carrier and a check in this amount 
would be sent to Mr. [redacted]'s attention for endorsement. As previously stated, Mr. [redacted] 
was apprised in said electronic correspondence that the amount of $5,416.12 was due ATI for 
services rendered and that such payment was due by October 31, 2014 as a result of its past 
due status. As of the date of this letter, Mr. [redacted] has not responded to the email, objected 
to same nor has his outstanding payment been forthcoming. 
We thank Mr. [redacted] for bringing to our attention his concerns regarding the manner in 
which the way he feels that he was treated by a few of our employees. We have conducted a 
thorough investigation into the matter and have taken action, if such action was warranted. 
As per our values, ATI is committed to treating all of our clients with respect. Accordingly, no 
deference is issued or disregard inferred based upon where someone resides. We are happy 
and pleased to assist any of our clients during their time of need regardless of where the 
property address might be located. As such, we regret that Mr. [redacted] feels that such was 
not the case.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to 
contact me at (714) 283-9990 extension [redacted]. 
Respectfully submitted, 
[redacted]
President

Please allow this written correspondence to serve as affirmation that American Technologies, Inc. has received notification that a complaint has been filed by Mr. [redacted]. We are in communication with Mr. [redacted] regarding his concerns and will keep the Revdex.com apprised as to the status...

of the matter.Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 283-9990 extension [redacted]