AZ Flood Squad

Unfortunately, the only way we can provide conclusive evidence that the suspected fungal growth is fungal growth is through science and testing, which your policy does not coverI can't offer to cover this expenseI can refer you the [redacted] website so you can learn about classes and categorizations of water; there not interchangeableThe customer's last position was class 3, now its category 3; these groupings imply different criteriaClass refers to amount of water present while category refers to quality of waterPlease visit: [redacted] I will proceed as if customer is referring to quality of water and discuss categorizations of waterBelow is the definition of category 3: Category This is the worst classification and is grossly unsanitaryIt could cause severe illness or death if ingestedIt used to be called black water, and sources include sewer backup, flooding from rivers or streams, toilet overflow with feces, and stagnant liquid that has begun to support bacterial growthThere are three phenom that are considered when categorizing water damage: Source, medium, and durationIn Dustin's case, the source began as clean water (Category 1) and when it came into contact with wall board, paint, and framing it became (category 2) as there are no known building materials to my knowledge which do not containing any chemicalsWhen walls were opened, a black substance was present on the framing with a wet odor similar to after a rain fallThe substance was present with saturated drywallIt is uncommon to test visible suspected fungal growth as most policies do no cover itThe cost of this is anywhere from $to $which is difficult for most home owner's to come up with in addition to a deductible which in most cases is $1,Secondly, if the policy covers it, there is a coverage cap associated with the policy; therefore, it is common in the industry both by restoration and insurance professionals to make certain assumptions at customer's best interest; allowing the cap to be used for remediation and post testing and not using it to eat up these limited funds on pre-testing something visually presentMost of the time, pre-testing is reserved for cases of suspected cross contamination or when clients are sick and think they have mold/ fungal growth, but nothing is visibleUpon initial arrival, there was no standing water or any water present outside the affected island wall (Water damage was not obvious)There was trapped moisture between the wall and paint resulting in a water bubbleWhen water is released all of a sudden and with force, you do not find bubbles full of water encapsulated by very thin paint membranesThis particular water bubble was quit large and hidden by a large picture frame; should that bubble have been filled up quickly (Without breaking) I would expect to see the picture frame knocked off the wall; that was not the caseIt was removedNow then, the source of loss was a broken pipe in the attic, some 10' above the floorThe moisture from floor to ceiling was sporadic (Present in some areas and dry in others); the base of the wall was consistently wet at between and inchesMoisture wicks up walls overtime, this is an indication that the water was present for at least hoursThe presence of a substance believed to be fungal growth was discovered upon opening the wall cavity and continued up cavity beyond the initial cut markThis further supports the hypothesis that this water was present more than hoursI would not go so far as to call this long term damage; however, it clearly did not happen the date it was discoveredI think our client is more concerned about having his claim denied than anything elseI don't think there is evidence for long term damageHowever, if my category hypothesis is wrong then that means something else is leaking or leaked in the past and was not resolvedRecords indicate the current occupants purchased the home April, 12th, So what this would indicate is one of two things: a skilled home inspector missed signs of water damage: baseboards pulling away from the walls, hollow tiles, expansion of press-board cabinets, brittle drywall, stained drywall, odor, etc and seller omitted water damage or the current occupants overlooked a previous water damage (Fungal growth needs a source of moisture)Lets suppose the home inspector overlooked this damage and buyer omitted leak – this would also mean that two home buyers and their Realtor overlooked the same damage (And any other potential buyers and Realtors looking at the home)The only other solutions I can think of (Aside from my hypothesis) are the current owners overlooked water damage between 4.12.13, but before or they handled it themselves or had another company handle it and the areas were not properly driedIf the suspected fungal growth is unrelated to this current claim; then it needs an explanation for its presenceNow then, (in less of course owners chose not to disclose a previous loss), there is one common denominator in all these explanations: home owners overlooked water damage at time of purchase, home owners overlooked water damage after purchase of home, and/or home owners overlooked water damage for loss occurring recently, as fungal growth requires a moisture sourceWhat's all this mean, - a small leak released over several days can easily go undetected – it occurs all the timeThe length of time before a water episode is discovered and treated plays a role in categorization, as water degrades overtimeYou can test this statement out by taking a bottle of water and drinking from it – now leave it out for or days without the cap, then be sure to smell it before you consider drinking itWhat happened? It was clean drinking water, where did that odor come from? Now imagine mixing in a little bacteria food for example your drywall, your baseboard, and your framingLets speculate, that the substance documented in the attached visual evidence isn't fungal growth at allThe following are a list if things I came up with that may explain the substance, feel free to offer up more ideasDirt, terminate trails, natural lumber mold, aged wood, nail staining holes, and so forthDirt – this material would not cling to the framing like what is revealed in photos; however suppose it did – a few inspection holes perhaps in one or more closets could shed light on what the other structure members look likeTerminate trails – Please reference the location of the affected island wallI would expect to see visible damage elsewhere and personally think it would be impractical for an insect to travel to the attic to gain access to a wall when lumber is available inches from ground level just above the slabNatural lumbar fungal growth – random inspection holes would show a statistical representation of the homeAged wood – Not all the framing members were affected with in the same picture frame of exposed base cavity; I would expect to see a uniform patternNail staining – typically moisture is involved with these, but again I would expect to see a uniformed patternMoving on to billing: There are two schools of thought in the industry; affected materials should be dried within percentage points of unaffected materials or when in reference to wood/ framing anything less than % will not support fungal growth; therefore, it is dry, (But not back to pre-loss condition which is what policy does cover)The technician reported the bulk of the areas were metering at or close to the dry standard of % percentage points, but he did report readings as high as to % in some areasHe did his initial assessment and did intend to leave drying equipment on for an additional day to dry to the dry standardHis readings never changed, after the adjuster questioned him – he stepped out and contacted his supervisor who informed him he is correct; however, it would be satisfactory to pull the equipment in these conditionsIts physics, not MagicAll our technicians utilize General Electric moisture probesI have attached a photo of Mr [redacted] conversing with the plumber with a demo guy in the back ground in personal protective equipment in direct sight of the customerHe is wearing a paper mask and coverallsThe demo portion required two days due to extensive time erecting containmentSince, I do not have visual evidence of the respiratory and cartridge that will be removed from the invoice, but not the coveralls the customer did not recall seeingWhen a cabinet is detached it is detached from the wall and from the granite, this takes extreme caution as granite is an extremely fragile materialOne slip and the carrier and/ or insured can plan on spending thousands of dollars as matching granite doesn't happen, nor does anyone in the industry guarantee granite will not break when handling it (A simple phone survey will support this statement)When we successfully accomplish removing a cabinet from granite or granite from cabinet however, one wants to look at it; both cabinet, and granite detaching are billed in addition to skilled labor hours to accomplish thisIts important to note, the carrier isn't questioning how this was invoiced at allAs we not only save the granite slab which matches another granite slab, but we saved the cabinet face which means only the cabinet box needed replacedHave we not been able to save one or the other, the insurer would have a construction invoice on their hands four to five times what it was and the customer would have been put out another month until he was back to pre-loss conditionThe billing of the cabinets and granite is justifiedMr***, how soon can I receive payment after I correct your invoice to exclude respirator rental and cartridges? Kindly, [redacted]

Our customer is correct that several inspections were re-scheduled due to emergenciesWe operate much like the triage system in Emergency roomsThat is, when all available resources are in use; customer or patients in the most need of assistance sometimes jump the line so to speak, for example a gun shot victim may be seen before someone with a sprained ankle even know that person with an ankle injury may have checked in firstA customer whose home just burned, or whose home was vandalized and needs secured, whose under water, or whom just discovered mold in their infants nursery when all available resources are in use, the emergency will come first and unfortunately, that means sometimes customer's are re-scheduledThis occurred twice for Mrs [redacted] from our accord, and once because she was not availableWe provide hour windows as it is hard to predict the unexpected, traffic, and how long a previous job will runMrs [redacted] , took issue on that we could not accommodate something before 9:AM, instead we offered between 9:AM and 12:PM and arrived at 9:AM at which time the customer met us in her drive way with the equipment and stated we were late; however, we arrived in the window communicated and informed her of our scheduling practicesWe do apologize for having to reschedule, but we do not offer exact times for non emergency inspections, nor do we inspect prior to AMWhen Mrs [redacted] contacted the office and spoke with me, she informed us that her intend was to place the equipment outsideI simply reminded her (Professionally) that while the equipment is within her procession, she is and will be held accountable for its whereabouts; she abruptly hung up on me before the end of my statementsAs far as the accusation about being, “Very Rude,” its not accurate; perhaps that's her impression after she was informed of her responsibility to care for the equipment placed in her home, but the verbal delivery of this point was very professional (She hung up on me - in mid sentence), I object to her interpretationThe carrier was billed a category loss with equipment decontamination; this is stated on the first page of the invoiceWe clean all equipment regardless of category and selected the more cost effective decontamination fee within standardized pricing accepted in the industrySometimes carriers may make the association between category and equipment decontamination because it is done in those circumstances as well; however, we believe our future customers are entitled to equipment that which does not cross contaminate their homesDrying equipment is not only subjected to various forms of water damages, but pet dander/ hair, mites, termite trails, bacteria, dust, odor, etcMany people in Arizona have allergies and are transplants from other areas of the country; they were prescribed Arizona by doctors for severe allergies and asthmaThis invoice was not billed category 3; nor did the carrier contact this officeI even reduced the amount of drying days billed to days to compensate for the rescheduled visits (On the first draft)There is a difference between our willingness to work with most carriers and receiving work directly from a carrierOur technicians did NOT represent themselves as extensions of the insurance carrierThe claim wasn't filed prior to the technician's arrival, our technician helped Mr [redacted] file a claim, so I'm not sure how customer would think we “Where contacted by them,” as they knew nothing of the damage until the customer filed a claimThe technician recommended on the first day base board and carpet pad removal to accelerate drying; Mr [redacted] did not want these materials removed and kept responding he will do any repairs himselfIt got to the point that this stance was prolonging the project and it wasn't until the adjuster informed him that he should allow us to proceed with our recommendations – that he finally allowed us to remove these materialsI can provide the claims adjuster's number so a representative from the Revdex.com can verify my statements

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
They still have no proof to say why it's a category They have no evidence to back it up other than someone saying what they think it is and that's what it isIt's a very aggressive tone for have no tests to back up there hypothesisEven the day the machines were removed they were saying the moisture is up and needs at least one more dayThe adjuster asked them to run a test again and magically it was where it was suppose to be atIf it wasn't for the adjuster those machines would have been here another dayAn example of the random charges would be like the use of heavy personnel equipment and not once did I see someone with anything fancy on but a mask and they even charging for counter top detachment and my counter was never detached only the inch back splash.
Regards,
*** ***

Unfortunately, the only way we can provide conclusive evidence that the suspected fungal growth is fungal growth is through science and testing, which your policy does not cover. I can't offer to cover this expense. I can refer you the [redacted] website so you can learn about classes and categorizations of water; there not interchangeable. The customer's last position was class 3, now its category 3; these groupings imply different criteria. Class refers to amount of water present while category refers to quality of water. Please visit: [redacted]. I will proceed as if customer is referring to quality of water and discuss categorizations of water. Below is the definition of category 3: Category 3. This is the worst classification and is grossly unsanitary. It could cause severe illness or death if ingested. It used to be called black water, and sources include sewer backup, flooding from rivers or streams, toilet overflow with feces, and stagnant liquid that has begun to support bacterial growth. There are three phenom that are considered when categorizing water damage: Source, medium, and duration. In Dustin's case, the source began as clean water (Category 1) and when it came into contact with wall board, paint, and framing it became (category 2) as there are no known building materials to my knowledge which do not containing any chemicals. When walls were opened, a black substance was present on the framing with a wet odor similar to after a rain fall. The substance was present with saturated drywall. It is uncommon to test visible suspected fungal growth as most policies do no cover it. The cost of this is anywhere from $400 to $700 which is difficult for most home owner's to come up with in addition to a deductible which in most cases is $1,000. Secondly, if the policy covers it, there is a coverage cap associated with the policy; therefore, it is common in the industry both by restoration and insurance professionals to make certain assumptions at customer's best interest; allowing the cap to be used for remediation and post testing and not using it to eat up these limited funds on pre-testing something visually present. Most of the time, pre-testing is reserved for cases of suspected cross contamination or when clients are sick and think they have mold/ fungal growth, but nothing is visible. Upon initial arrival, there was no standing water or any water present outside the affected island wall (Water damage was not obvious). There was trapped moisture between the wall and paint resulting in a water bubble. When water is released all of a sudden and with force, you do not find bubbles full of water encapsulated by very thin paint membranes. This particular water bubble was quit large and hidden by a large picture frame; should that bubble have been filled up quickly (Without breaking) I would expect to see the picture frame knocked off the wall; that was not the case. It was removed. Now then, the source of loss was a broken pipe in the attic, some 10' above the floor. The moisture from floor to ceiling was sporadic (Present in some areas and dry in others); the base of the wall was consistently wet at between 10 and 20 inches. Moisture wicks up walls overtime, this is an indication that the water was present for at least 72 hours. The presence of a substance believed to be fungal growth was discovered upon opening the wall cavity and continued up cavity beyond the initial cut mark. This further supports the hypothesis that this water was present more than 72 hours. I would not go so far as to call this long term damage; however, it clearly did not happen the date it was discovered. I think our client is more concerned about having his claim denied than anything else. I don't think there is evidence for long term damage. However, if my category 3 hypothesis is wrong then that means something else is leaking or leaked in the past and was not resolved. Records indicate the current occupants purchased the home April, 12th, 2013. So what this would indicate is one of two things: a skilled home inspector missed signs of water damage: baseboards pulling away from the walls, hollow tiles, expansion of press-board cabinets, brittle drywall, stained drywall, odor, etc and seller omitted water damage or the current occupants overlooked a previous water damage (Fungal growth needs a source of moisture). Lets suppose the home inspector overlooked this damage and buyer omitted leak – this would also mean that two home buyers and their Realtor overlooked the same damage (And any other potential buyers and Realtors looking at the home). The only other solutions I can think of (Aside from my hypothesis) are the current owners overlooked water damage between 4.12.13, but before 1.31.15 or they handled it themselves or had another company handle it and the areas were not properly dried. If the suspected fungal growth is unrelated to this current claim; then it needs an explanation for its presence. Now then, (in less of course owners chose not to disclose a previous loss), there is one common denominator in all these explanations: home owners overlooked water damage at time of purchase, home owners overlooked water damage after purchase of home, and/or home owners overlooked water damage for loss occurring recently, as fungal growth requires a moisture source. What's all this mean, - a small leak released over several days can easily go undetected – it occurs all the time. The length of time before a water episode is discovered and treated plays a role in categorization, as water degrades overtime. You can test this statement out by taking a bottle of water and drinking from it – now leave it out for 3 or 4 days without the cap, then be sure to smell it before you consider drinking it. What happened? It was clean drinking water, where did that odor come from? Now imagine mixing in a little bacteria food for example your drywall, your baseboard, and your framing. Lets speculate, that the substance documented in the attached visual evidence isn't fungal growth at all. The following are a list if things I came up with that may explain the substance, feel free to offer up more ideas. Dirt, terminate trails, natural lumber mold, aged wood, nail staining holes, and so forth. Dirt – this material would not cling to the framing like what is revealed in photos; however suppose it did – a few inspection holes perhaps in one or more closets could shed light on what the other structure members look like. Terminate trails – Please reference the location of the affected island wall. I would expect to see visible damage elsewhere and personally think it would be impractical for an insect to travel to the attic to gain access to a wall when lumber is available 4 inches from ground level just above the slab. Natural lumbar fungal growth – random inspection holes would show a statistical representation of the home. Aged wood – Not all the framing members were affected with in the same picture frame of exposed base cavity; I would expect to see a uniform pattern. Nail staining – typically moisture is involved with these, but again I would expect to see a uniformed pattern. Moving on to billing: There are two schools of thought in the industry; affected materials should be dried within 4 percentage points of unaffected materials or when in reference to wood/ framing anything less than 16 % will not support fungal growth; therefore, it is dry, (But not back to pre-loss condition which is what policy does cover). The technician reported the bulk of the areas were metering at or close to the dry standard of 8 % percentage points, but he did report readings as high as 14 to 16 % in some areas. He did his initial assessment and did intend to leave drying equipment on for an additional day to dry to the dry standard. His readings never changed, after the adjuster questioned him – he stepped out and contacted his supervisor who informed him he is correct; however, it would be satisfactory to pull the equipment in these conditions. Its physics, not Magic. All our technicians utilize General Electric moisture probes. I have attached a photo of Mr. [redacted] conversing with the plumber with a demo guy in the back ground in personal protective equipment in direct sight of the customer. He is wearing a paper mask and coveralls. The demo portion required two days due to extensive time erecting containment. Since, I do not have visual evidence of the respiratory and cartridge that will be removed from the invoice, but not the coveralls the customer did not recall seeing. When a cabinet is detached it is detached from the wall and from the granite, this takes extreme caution as granite is an extremely fragile material. One slip and the carrier and/ or insured can plan on spending thousands of dollars as matching granite doesn't happen, nor does anyone in the industry guarantee granite will not break when handling it (A simple phone survey will support this statement). When we successfully accomplish removing a cabinet from granite or granite from cabinet however, one wants to look at it; both cabinet, and granite detaching are billed in addition to skilled labor hours to accomplish this. Its important to note, the carrier isn't questioning how this was invoiced at all. As we not only save the granite slab which matches another granite slab, but we saved the cabinet face which means only the cabinet box needed replaced. Have we not been able to save one or the other, the insurer would have a construction invoice on their hands four to five times what it was and the customer would have been put out another month until he was back to pre-loss condition. The billing of the cabinets and granite is justified. Mr. [redacted], how soon can I receive payment after I correct your invoice to exclude respirator rental and cartridges? Kindly,[redacted]

Our customer is correct that several inspections were re-scheduled due to emergencies. We operate much like the triage system in Emergency rooms. That is, when all available resources are in use; customer or patients in the most need of assistance sometimes jump the line so to speak, for...

example a gun shot victim may be seen before someone with a sprained ankle even know that person with an ankle injury may have checked in first. A customer whose home just burned, or whose home was vandalized and needs secured, whose under water, or whom just discovered mold in their infants nursery … when all available resources are in use, the emergency will come first and unfortunately, that means sometimes customer's are re-scheduled. This occurred twice for Mrs. [redacted] from our accord, and once because she was not available. We provide 3 hour windows as it is hard to predict the unexpected, traffic, and how long a previous job will run. Mrs. [redacted], took issue on 4.17.15 that we could not accommodate something before 9:00 AM, instead we offered between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM and arrived at 9:11 AM at which time the customer met us in her drive way with the equipment and stated we were late; however, we arrived in the window communicated and informed her of our scheduling practices. We do apologize for having to reschedule, but we do not offer exact times for non emergency inspections, nor do we inspect prior to 9 AM. When Mrs. [redacted] contacted the office and spoke with me, she informed us that her intend was to place the equipment outside. I simply reminded her (Professionally) that while the equipment is within her procession, she is and will be held accountable for its whereabouts; she abruptly hung up on me before the end of my statements. As far as the accusation about being, “Very Rude,” its not accurate; perhaps that's her impression after she was informed of her responsibility to care for the equipment placed in her home, but the verbal delivery of this point was very professional (She hung up on me - in mid sentence), I object to her interpretation. The carrier was billed a category 1 loss with equipment decontamination; this is stated on the first page of the invoice. We clean all equipment regardless of category and selected the more cost effective decontamination fee within standardized pricing accepted in the industry. Sometimes carriers may make the association between category 3 and equipment decontamination because it is done in those circumstances as well; however, we believe our future customers are entitled to equipment that which does not cross contaminate their homes. Drying equipment is not only subjected to various forms of water damages, but pet dander/ hair, mites, termite trails, bacteria, dust, odor, etc. Many people in Arizona have allergies and are transplants from other areas of the country; they were prescribed Arizona by doctors for severe allergies and asthma. This invoice was not billed category 3; nor did the carrier contact this office. I even reduced the amount of drying days billed to 3 days to compensate for the rescheduled visits (On the first draft). There is a difference between our willingness to work with most carriers and receiving work directly from a carrier. Our technicians did NOT represent themselves as extensions of the insurance carrier. The claim wasn't filed prior to the technician's arrival, our technician helped Mr. [redacted] file a claim, so I'm not sure how customer would think we “Where contacted by them,” … as they knew nothing of the damage until the customer filed a claim. The technician recommended on the first day base board and carpet pad removal to accelerate drying; Mr. [redacted] did not want these materials removed and kept responding he will do any repairs himself. It got to the point that this stance was prolonging the project and it wasn't until the adjuster informed him that he should allow us to proceed with our recommendations – that he finally allowed us to remove these materials. I can provide the claims adjuster's number so a representative from the Revdex.com can verify my statements.

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 response from Arizona Flood Squad is filled completely with un true statements.
Regards,
[redacted]

Good Evening,    Regarding the complaint # [redacted], the balance due is true and correct, and the client is asserting a refusal to pay the full amount due. Partial mitigation was performed in August of 2015, and client has not issued any payment at this...

time.   Kindly,  [redacted]

I have attached part 1 and the revised invoice.  Please review, AZ Flood Squad

Part 1, [redacted] response: Thursday, December 15, 2016Good Afternoon Sir, An invoice was sent out at completion of project. I have listed in our data base [redacted], Chandler, AZ 85224, please verify the address? The insurance provider typically sends a copy of what you are...

invoiced and what they compensated for also. We originally billed your carrier $2,116.66, we agreed to $1,996.94. This is what the carrier paid you and what you were most recently were sent. We also tried contacting you numerous times by phone. Our records indicate a phone number was switched since then. Regarding specifics in invoicing, we do apologize for the typos and resulting confusion with with inspections on 5.12 and 5.13 and service call; however, these errors had no consequences on the billing. If you review the charges, you will notice you are billed for a business hour service charge and business hour rates on 5.12 and 5.13. Only the attached notes are wrong and should state “PM,” rather than “AM.” The only after hour charge on the entire invoice is for an inspection on Sat. 5/16. If you review line item # 2 for the inspections in question, the attached note reads, “Inspected loss on 5.12 @ 1:58 AM and 5.13 @10:25 AM. It should read … 5.12 @ 1:58 PM …, the actual rate is accurate. The 12th is a Tuesday and the 13th  is a Wednesday, both are billed at business hour rates. Regarding false charges, that’s not the case. We did not make up pricing; however, the estimating software did add whats referred to as a labor minimum as the threshold kicked in after content manipulation in the bedroom was removed. I have included a YouTube video link describing how the estimating platform Xactimate uses labor minimums. When the $23.11 was removed in the Bedroom for contents manipulation it auto triggered a labor minimum listed as general labor in the amount of $50.87. This was automatically generated by the software as the resulting task such as applying disinfectant, removal of trim, lifting carpet, and pad removal total $37.62 which is below a threshold. For example, if you needed $37.62 in work done at your home, you would have a hard time finding a business to do it as the cost of responding to perform minimal work would exceed the work. The video link below by [redacted], the Xactimate Assistant Vice President of Pricing Data Services, explains this point in more depth. [redacted]After watching the video and understanding what happened, I respectfully ask that you stop with the allegations of falsifying and making up charges. We simply overlooked the labor minimum which is easy

There is truth to Mr. [redacted]'s statement about the insurance carrier not receiving an invoice for a considerable time. The delay is not due to oversight or any bad intention; of course we want compensated for the work we performed. The delay is due to the volume that we have been receiving in...

the last quarter due to our attention to detail and skilled staff; at that time we were understaffed for the volume we were receiving from various resources. We work with many insurance carriers and trades and were plainly understaffed; we are still recovering from the surge in referral work and have beefed up staff to be able to handle this volume. The [redacted]'s filed an insurance claim and are only responsible to the contractor for their deductible; that being stated, AZ Flood Squad invoices the carrier directly on behalf of the customer and are compensated by the carrier directly in most cases; sometimes two party checks are issued and customers are provide a copy (All this was communicated to the insureds on the day the job was signed). As always, our customers are entitled to any documentation regarding their home upon request; however, this is the first request I've seen from the customer. The customer must have received a copy at some point to make such statements, "They charge for things that were never used." This statement is broad; I request further explanation to respond accordingly to this. Our customers and their respective carriers are billed for 100 % of the equipment and task which were performed, and 0 % for those that were not provided. If there was a mistake, it will be dealt with accordingly. I don't consider it a mistake if the insurance carrier disagrees with how a project was run. A mistake is something invoiced, that was not provided. Again, further explanation is needed by the client for me to address this point. It is apparent that the carrier has coached the customer on classification and categorizations. The following documentation was present on the first and second page of the invoice the carrier received: Peril: Moisture Intrusion Source: Broken pipe in attic Affected regions: Family R, Living Rm, and KitchenCategory: 3, - due to length of time between water episode and mitigation supported by suspected fungal growth Class: 4, due to bound moisture in framing Remedy: Performed 360 degree moisture inspection, isolated affected areas, adjusted contents to facilitate drying, contained affected areas, removed affected trim, drywall, and insulation; support granite counters, pulled out cabinet without damaging faces, decontaminated framing due to category 3 water, and applied disinfectant before setting up air quality and drying equipment. Notes: - Unfortunately, [redacted] could not be present for walk through with SF field adjuster; however, he was informed by one of my green technicians that the field adjuster isn't allowing us to classify this project as category 3. Just to make things very clear, we're not asking for authorization to designate this project as a category 3. We are telling you it is a category 3. - We are also informing you there are hollow tiles right at base of wall which was affected, and no other area, but don't take my word for it; send out a flooring vendor. I do not have structural engineering experience; however, I suspect that if the hollow tiles were due to the foundation leveling out over time, I would expect to see a uniform pattern which is not present. - Less than 10 sq ft of suspected fungal growth was documented by nine year veteran and supervisor at base of affected wall up some two ft. Supervisor responded initial day. All affected drywall was removed and framing was detail cleaned prior to field adjuster's inspection over course of mitigation; however, suspected fungal growth was sealed up after first identifying it to insureds. This should have been identified in field adjuster's interview with customer. - Date of loss is most likely date of discovery. Loss may have occurred up to three or four days prior to date of discovery. - Demo calculations are based on instruction and photos; technician pulled off job without documenting scope.It should be noted that this loss could have easily been denied, due to the suspected fungal growth which generally indicates a time exceeding 72 hours. Coming back to classification, please note that we identified it as class 4 - which is used to identify bound moisture which results from moisture present several days prior to date of discovery. Mr. [redacted] incorrectly mentioned that we are arguing for class 3. The customer is correct that there isn't a lab test supporting whether or not the suspected fungal growth was indeed fungal growth and/ or mold as his policy does not cover for mold testing, nor did the customer ever request testing or offer to cover it in addition to his deductible. Testing is something not performed in house as this is a conflict of interest. So the idea that we could have simply performed test our-self is not validated. This would in essence be like taking a test and grading it yourself; it is not good business. Mt [redacted] is more than welcome to test anything he wants at his own cost. Our supervisor, whom has 9 years experience responded to the loss on day 1. His intent was to perform as little demolition as possible by removing 2' of drywall at the base of an island type wall where three large open rooms met with vaulted ceilings. He cut drywall out and immediately found a black substance believed to be suspected fungal growth. The walls were saturated and composed of organic materials such as baseboard, drywall, and wood framing; all food sources for suspected fungal growth. The lead technician stopped  removing drywall, sealed up the cavity, and scheduled demolition the following day only after a complex containment was built 360 degrees around the affected wall, into 3 rooms, and around a cabinet. A section of cabinet was pulled out without damage; the face removed which allowed the contractor to rebuilt the box and we also saved the granite; a very fragile material to work with, by suspending it. I will gladly submit photos documenting the extend we went to perform this project in the safest and least obstructive measures possible. Unfortunately, with suspected fungal growth involved, protocols change and non structural materials such as drywall are removed; all of it that is affected; then the framing is detailed cleaned through sanding and Hepa vacuuming, then a green rated disinfectant is applied before the structure is dried.  The issue with the project was the delay in producing the invoice which admittedly I accept guilt as this file and another 80 to 100 files were stacked over two desk for a period of time with more accumulating each day. This carrier was able to capitalize on this and turn our customer against us; for this I regret; everything else is text book. Additionally, there are no overlapping charges between the remediation performed by AZ Flood Squad and the construction performed by the contractor.  Respectfully,[redacted]

Mr. D[redacted],
Regarding the white out on our “Insured’s Authorization to Pay Account,” this area reads,“I have authorized the repair of the damage to my property and/ or replacement of my property made by an occurrence on 1-10- 15 . (White out occurs here)“Although not a wise decision...

to place white out on a contract, I think it was something innocent. Customer’s often inquire about which lines to place the date,month, and year on, when there are two lines separated by a period. Often times we have customers sign the most important sections and have the admin. staff fill out the balance which is repeated throughout the paper work. It would appearthat the “ . “ fooled our own staff. The only information whited out is a date. This same date information is located on the two separate work authorizations you also signed. Prior to having the forms scanned in, our staff usually fills in any missing information, I suspect this was the case. You can see on the form in question two distinct hand-writings. I apologize for the confusion.Its time we delete the second line following the period and simplify it.Regarding payment, time line, and refusal to share. Its really more about negotiating the value of the invoice than anything else. We are ready to put this behind us and apologize for your inconvenience. We reached out to your carrier this week and spoke with a team member as your adjuster was not available on 8-23- 16. The team member mentioned 2 requested revisions she saw in the notes. Those request were made the same day and submitted. Your adjuster called back today 8-26- 16 and made some additional request, those request were accommodated and re-submitted. I delayed our response hoping I could inform you the claim has been settled; however, that may not occur until Monday. Your adjuster’s voice mail indicates she is working the storms.Mr. D[redacted], we are working to settle this claim and move forward.Sincerely,AZ Flood Squad

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
It is a shame that I had to take this kind of action against AZ Flood Squad to get someone to take notice. At this point, the adjustor has made the payment and I have receive a paid in full statement from AZ Flood Squad, which should end any dispute.

Regards,

Michael D[redacted]

Our customer is correct that several inspections were re-scheduled due to emergencies. We operate much like the triage system in Emergency rooms. That is, when all available resources are in use; customer or patients in the most need of assistance sometimes jump the line so to speak, for...

example a gun shot victim may be seen before someone with a sprained ankle even know that person with an ankle injury may have checked in first. A customer whose home just burned, or whose home was vandalized and needs secured, whose under water, or whom just discovered mold in their infants nursery … when all available resources are in use, the emergency will come first and unfortunately, that means sometimes customer's are re-scheduled. This occurred twice for Mrs. [redacted] from our accord, and once because she was not available. We provide 3 hour windows as it is hard to predict the unexpected, traffic, and how long a previous job will run. Mrs. [redacted], took issue on 4.17.15 that we could not accommodate something before 9:00 AM, instead we offered between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM and arrived at 9:11 AM at which time the customer met us in her drive way with the equipment and stated we were late; however, we arrived in the window communicated and informed her of our scheduling practices. We do apologize for having to reschedule, but we do not offer exact times for non emergency inspections, nor do we inspect prior to 9 AM. When Mrs. [redacted] contacted the office and spoke with me, she informed us that her intend was to place the equipment outside. I simply reminded her (Professionally) that while the equipment is within her procession, she is and will be held accountable for its whereabouts; she abruptly hung up on me before the end of my statements. As far as the accusation about being, “Very Rude,” its not accurate; perhaps that's her impression after she was informed of her responsibility to care for the equipment placed in her home, but the verbal delivery of this point was very professional (She hung up on me - in mid sentence), I object to her interpretation. The carrier was billed a category 1 loss with equipment decontamination; this is stated on the first page of the invoice. We clean all equipment regardless of category and selected the more cost effective decontamination fee within standardized pricing accepted in the industry. Sometimes carriers may make the association between category 3 and equipment decontamination because it is done in those circumstances as well; however, we believe our future customers are entitled to equipment that which does not cross contaminate their homes. Drying equipment is not only subjected to various forms of water damages, but pet dander/ hair, mites, termite trails, bacteria, dust, odor, etc. Many people in Arizona have allergies and are transplants from other areas of the country; they were prescribed Arizona by doctors for severe allergies and asthma. This invoice was not billed category 3; nor did the carrier contact this office. I even reduced the amount of drying days billed to 3 days to compensate for the rescheduled visits (On the first draft). There is a difference between our willingness to work with most carriers and receiving work directly from a carrier. Our technicians did NOT represent themselves as extensions of the insurance carrier. The claim wasn't filed prior to the technician's arrival, our technician helped Mr. [redacted] file a claim, so I'm not sure how customer would think we “Where contacted by them,” … as they knew nothing of the damage until the customer filed a claim. The technician recommended on the first day base board and carpet pad removal to accelerate drying; Mr. [redacted] did not want these materials removed and kept responding he will do any repairs himself. It got to the point that this stance was prolonging the project and it wasn't until the adjuster informed him that he should allow us to proceed with our recommendations – that he finally allowed us to remove these materials. I can provide the claims adjuster's number so a representative from the Revdex.com can verify my statements.

There is truth to Mr. [redacted]'s statement about the insurance carrier not receiving an invoice for a considerable time. The delay is not due to oversight or any bad intention; of course we want compensated for the work we performed. The delay is due to the volume that we have been receiving in...

the last quarter due to our attention to detail and skilled staff; at that time we were understaffed for the volume we were receiving from various resources. We work with many insurance carriers and trades and were plainly understaffed; we are still recovering from the surge in referral work and have beefed up staff to be able to handle this volume. The [redacted]'s filed an insurance claim and are only responsible to the contractor for their deductible; that being stated, AZ Flood Squad invoices the carrier directly on behalf of the customer and are compensated by the carrier directly in most cases; sometimes two party checks are issued and customers are provide a copy (All this was communicated to the insureds on the day the job was signed). As always, our customers are entitled to any documentation regarding their home upon request; however, this is the first request I've seen from the customer. The customer must have received a copy at some point to make such statements, "They charge for things that were never used." This statement is broad; I request further explanation to respond accordingly to this. Our customers and their respective carriers are billed for 100 % of the equipment and task which were performed, and 0 % for those that were not provided. If there was a mistake, it will be dealt with accordingly. I don't consider it a mistake if the insurance carrier disagrees with how a project was run. A mistake is something invoiced, that was not provided. Again, further explanation is needed by the client for me to address this point. It is apparent that the carrier has coached the customer on classification and categorizations. The following documentation was present on the first and second page of the invoice the carrier received: Peril: Moisture Intrusion Source: Broken pipe in attic Affected regions: Family R, Living Rm, and KitchenCategory: 3, - due to length of time between water episode and mitigation supported by suspected fungal growth Class: 4, due to bound moisture in framing Remedy: Performed 360 degree moisture inspection, isolated affected areas, adjusted contents to facilitate drying, contained affected areas, removed affected trim, drywall, and insulation; support granite counters, pulled out cabinet without damaging faces, decontaminated framing due to category 3 water, and applied disinfectant before setting up air quality and drying equipment. Notes: - Unfortunately, [redacted] could not be present for walk through with SF field adjuster; however, he was informed by one of my green technicians that the field adjuster isn't allowing us to classify this project as category 3. Just to make things very clear, we're not asking for authorization to designate this project as a category 3. We are telling you it is a category 3. - We are also informing you there are hollow tiles right at base of wall which was affected, and no other area, but don't take my word for it; send out a flooring vendor. I do not have structural engineering experience; however, I suspect that if the hollow tiles were due to the foundation leveling out over time, I would expect to see a uniform pattern which is not present. - Less than 10 sq ft of suspected fungal growth was documented by nine year veteran and supervisor at base of affected wall up some two ft. Supervisor responded initial day. All affected drywall was removed and framing was detail cleaned prior to field adjuster's inspection over course of mitigation; however, suspected fungal growth was sealed up after first identifying it to insureds. This should have been identified in field adjuster's interview with customer. - Date of loss is most likely date of discovery. Loss may have occurred up to three or four days prior to date of discovery. - Demo calculations are based on instruction and photos; technician pulled off job without documenting scope.It should be noted that this loss could have easily been denied, due to the suspected fungal growth which generally indicates a time exceeding 72 hours. Coming back to classification, please note that we identified it as class 4 - which is used to identify bound moisture which results from moisture present several days prior to date of discovery. Mr. [redacted] incorrectly mentioned that we are arguing for class 3. The customer is correct that there isn't a lab test supporting whether or not the suspected fungal growth was indeed fungal growth and/ or mold as his policy does not cover for mold testing, nor did the customer ever request testing or offer to cover it in addition to his deductible. Testing is something not performed in house as this is a conflict of interest. So the idea that we could have simply performed test our-self is not validated. This would in essence be like taking a test and grading it yourself; it is not good business. Mt [redacted] is more than welcome to test anything he wants at his own cost. Our supervisor, whom has 9 years experience responded to the loss on day 1. His intent was to perform as little demolition as possible by removing 2' of drywall at the base of an island type wall where three large open rooms met with vaulted ceilings. He cut drywall out and immediately found a black substance believed to be suspected fungal growth. The walls were saturated and composed of organic materials such as baseboard, drywall, and wood framing; all food sources for suspected fungal growth. The lead technician stopped  removing drywall, sealed up the cavity, and scheduled demolition the following day only after a complex containment was built 360 degrees around the affected wall, into 3 rooms, and around a cabinet. A section of cabinet was pulled out without damage; the face removed which allowed the contractor to rebuilt the box and we also saved the granite; a very fragile material to work with, by suspending it. I will gladly submit photos documenting the extend we went to perform this project in the safest and least obstructive measures possible. Unfortunately, with suspected fungal growth involved, protocols change and non structural materials such as drywall are removed; all of it that is affected; then the framing is detailed cleaned through sanding and Hepa vacuuming, then a green rated disinfectant is applied before the structure is dried.  The issue with the project was the delay in producing the invoice which admittedly I accept guilt as this file and another 80 to 100 files were stacked over two desk for a period of time with more accumulating each day. This carrier was able to capitalize on this and turn our customer against us; for this I regret; everything else is text book. Additionally, there are no overlapping charges between the remediation performed by AZ Flood Squad and the construction performed by the contractor.  Respectfully,[redacted]

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.

They still have no proof to say why it's a category 3. They have no evidence to back it up other than someone saying what they think it is and that's what it is. It's a very aggressive tone for have no tests to back up there hypothesis. Even the day the machines were removed they were saying the moisture is up and needs at least one more day. The adjuster asked them to run a test again and magically it was where it was suppose to be at. If it wasn't for the adjuster those machines would have been here another day. An example of the random charges would be like the use of heavy personnel equipment and not once did I see someone with anything fancy on but a mask and they even charging for counter top detachment and my counter was never detached only the 4 inch back splash. 

Regards,

Unfortunately, the only way we can provide conclusive evidence that the suspected fungal growth is fungal growth is through science and testing, which your policy does not cover. I can't offer to cover this expense. I can refer you the [redacted] website so you can learn about classes and categorizations of water; there not interchangeable. The customer's last position was class 3, now its category 3; these groupings imply different criteria. Class refers to amount of water present while category refers to quality of water. Please visit: [redacted]. I will proceed as if customer is referring to quality of water and discuss categorizations of water. Below is the definition of category 3: Category 3. This is the worst classification and is grossly unsanitary. It could cause severe illness or death if ingested. It used to be called black water, and sources include sewer backup, flooding from rivers or streams, toilet overflow with feces, and stagnant liquid that has begun to support bacterial growth. There are three phenom that are considered when categorizing water damage: Source, medium, and duration. In Dustin's case, the source began as clean water (Category 1) and when it came into contact with wall board, paint, and framing it became (category 2) as there are no known building materials to my knowledge which do not containing any chemicals. When walls were opened, a black substance was present on the framing with a wet odor similar to after a rain fall. The substance was present with saturated drywall. It is uncommon to test visible suspected fungal growth as most policies do no cover it. The cost of this is anywhere from $400 to $700 which is difficult for most home owner's to come up with in addition to a deductible which in most cases is $1,000. Secondly, if the policy covers it, there is a coverage cap associated with the policy; therefore, it is common in the industry both by restoration and insurance professionals to make certain assumptions at customer's best interest; allowing the cap to be used for remediation and post testing and not using it to eat up these limited funds on pre-testing something visually present. Most of the time, pre-testing is reserved for cases of suspected cross contamination or when clients are sick and think they have mold/ fungal growth, but nothing is visible. Upon initial arrival, there was no standing water or any water present outside the affected island wall (Water damage was not obvious). There was trapped moisture between the wall and paint resulting in a water bubble. When water is released all of a sudden and with force, you do not find bubbles full of water encapsulated by very thin paint membranes. This particular water bubble was quit large and hidden by a large picture frame; should that bubble have been filled up quickly (Without breaking) I would expect to see the picture frame knocked off the wall; that was not the case. It was removed. Now then, the source of loss was a broken pipe in the attic, some 10' above the floor. The moisture from floor to ceiling was sporadic (Present in some areas and dry in others); the base of the wall was consistently wet at between 10 and 20 inches. Moisture wicks up walls overtime, this is an indication that the water was present for at least 72 hours. The presence of a substance believed to be fungal growth was discovered upon opening the wall cavity and continued up cavity beyond the initial cut mark. This further supports the hypothesis that this water was present more than 72 hours. I would not go so far as to call this long term damage; however, it clearly did not happen the date it was discovered. I think our client is more concerned about having his claim denied than anything else. I don't think there is evidence for long term damage. However, if my category 3 hypothesis is wrong then that means something else is leaking or leaked in the past and was not resolved. Records indicate the current occupants purchased the home April, 12th, 2013. So what this would indicate is one of two things: a skilled home inspector missed signs of water damage: baseboards pulling away from the walls, hollow tiles, expansion of press-board cabinets, brittle drywall, stained drywall, odor, etc and seller omitted water damage or the current occupants overlooked a previous water damage (Fungal growth needs a source of moisture). Lets suppose the home inspector overlooked this damage and buyer omitted leak – this would also mean that two home buyers and their Realtor overlooked the same damage (And any other potential buyers and Realtors looking at the home). The only other solutions I can think of (Aside from my hypothesis) are the current owners overlooked water damage between 4.12.13, but before 1.31.15 or they handled it themselves or had another company handle it and the areas were not properly dried. If the suspected fungal growth is unrelated to this current claim; then it needs an explanation for its presence. Now then, (in less of course owners chose not to disclose a previous loss), there is one common denominator in all these explanations: home owners overlooked water damage at time of purchase, home owners overlooked water damage after purchase of home, and/or home owners overlooked water damage for loss occurring recently, as fungal growth requires a moisture source. What's all this mean, - a small leak released over several days can easily go undetected – it occurs all the time. The length of time before a water episode is discovered and treated plays a role in categorization, as water degrades overtime. You can test this statement out by taking a bottle of water and drinking from it – now leave it out for 3 or 4 days without the cap, then be sure to smell it before you consider drinking it. What happened? It was clean drinking water, where did that odor come from? Now imagine mixing in a little bacteria food for example your drywall, your baseboard, and your framing. Lets speculate, that the substance documented in the attached visual evidence isn't fungal growth at all. The following are a list if things I came up with that may explain the substance, feel free to offer up more ideas. Dirt, terminate trails, natural lumber mold, aged wood, nail staining holes, and so forth. Dirt – this material would not cling to the framing like what is revealed in photos; however suppose it did – a few inspection holes perhaps in one or more closets could shed light on what the other structure members look like. Terminate trails – Please reference the location of the affected island wall. I would expect to see visible damage elsewhere and personally think it would be impractical for an insect to travel to the attic to gain access to a wall when lumber is available 4 inches from ground level just above the slab. Natural lumbar fungal growth – random inspection holes would show a statistical representation of the home. Aged wood – Not all the framing members were affected with in the same picture frame of exposed base cavity; I would expect to see a uniform pattern. Nail staining – typically moisture is involved with these, but again I would expect to see a uniformed pattern. Moving on to billing: There are two schools of thought in the industry; affected materials should be dried within 4 percentage points of unaffected materials or when in reference to wood/ framing anything less than 16 % will not support fungal growth; therefore, it is dry, (But not back to pre-loss condition which is what policy does cover). The technician reported the bulk of the areas were metering at or close to the dry standard of 8 % percentage points, but he did report readings as high as 14 to 16 % in some areas. He did his initial assessment and did intend to leave drying equipment on for an additional day to dry to the dry standard. His readings never changed, after the adjuster questioned him – he stepped out and contacted his supervisor who informed him he is correct; however, it would be satisfactory to pull the equipment in these conditions. Its physics, not Magic. All our technicians utilize General Electric moisture probes. I have attached a photo of Mr. [redacted] conversing with the plumber with a demo guy in the back ground in personal protective equipment in direct sight of the customer. He is wearing a paper mask and coveralls. The demo portion required two days due to extensive time erecting containment. Since, I do not have visual evidence of the respiratory and cartridge that will be removed from the invoice, but not the coveralls the customer did not recall seeing. When a cabinet is detached it is detached from the wall and from the granite, this takes extreme caution as granite is an extremely fragile material. One slip and the carrier and/ or insured can plan on spending thousands of dollars as matching granite doesn't happen, nor does anyone in the industry guarantee granite will not break when handling it (A simple phone survey will support this statement). When we successfully accomplish removing a cabinet from granite or granite from cabinet however, one wants to look at it; both cabinet, and granite detaching are billed in addition to skilled labor hours to accomplish this. Its important to note, the carrier isn't questioning how this was invoiced at all. As we not only save the granite slab which matches another granite slab, but we saved the cabinet face which means only the cabinet box needed replaced. Have we not been able to save one or the other, the insurer would have a construction invoice on their hands four to five times what it was and the customer would have been put out another month until he was back to pre-loss condition. The billing of the cabinets and granite is justified. Mr. [redacted], how soon can I receive payment after I correct your invoice to exclude respirator rental and cartridges? Kindly,[redacted]

Our customer is correct that several inspections were re-scheduled due to emergencies. We operate much like the triage system in Emergency rooms. That is, when all available resources are in use; customer or patients in the most need of assistance sometimes jump the line so to speak, for...

example a gun shot victim may be seen before someone with a sprained ankle even know that person with an ankle injury may have checked in first. A customer whose home just burned, or whose home was vandalized and needs secured, whose under water, or whom just discovered mold in their infants nursery … when all available resources are in use, the emergency will come first and unfortunately, that means sometimes customer's are re-scheduled. This occurred twice for Mrs. [redacted] from our accord, and once because she was not available. We provide 3 hour windows as it is hard to predict the unexpected, traffic, and how long a previous job will run. Mrs. [redacted], took issue on 4.17.15 that we could not accommodate something before 9:00 AM, instead we offered between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM and arrived at 9:11 AM at which time the customer met us in her drive way with the equipment and stated we were late; however, we arrived in the window communicated and informed her of our scheduling practices. We do apologize for having to reschedule, but we do not offer exact times for non emergency inspections, nor do we inspect prior to 9 AM. When Mrs. [redacted] contacted the office and spoke with me, she informed us that her intend was to place the equipment outside. I simply reminded her (Professionally) that while the equipment is within her procession, she is and will be held accountable for its whereabouts; she abruptly hung up on me before the end of my statements. As far as the accusation about being, “Very Rude,” its not accurate; perhaps that's her impression after she was informed of her responsibility to care for the equipment placed in her home, but the verbal delivery of this point was very professional (She hung up on me - in mid sentence), I object to her interpretation. The carrier was billed a category 1 loss with equipment decontamination; this is stated on the first page of the invoice. We clean all equipment regardless of category and selected the more cost effective decontamination fee within standardized pricing accepted in the industry. Sometimes carriers may make the association between category 3 and equipment decontamination because it is done in those circumstances as well; however, we believe our future customers are entitled to equipment that which does not cross contaminate their homes. Drying equipment is not only subjected to various forms of water damages, but pet dander/ hair, mites, termite trails, bacteria, dust, odor, etc. Many people in Arizona have allergies and are transplants from other areas of the country; they were prescribed Arizona by doctors for severe allergies and asthma. This invoice was not billed category 3; nor did the carrier contact this office. I even reduced the amount of drying days billed to 3 days to compensate for the rescheduled visits (On the first draft). There is a difference between our willingness to work with most carriers and receiving work directly from a carrier. Our technicians did NOT represent themselves as extensions of the insurance carrier. The claim wasn't filed prior to the technician's arrival, our technician helped Mr. [redacted] file a claim, so I'm not sure how customer would think we “Where contacted by them,” … as they knew nothing of the damage until the customer filed a claim. The technician recommended on the first day base board and carpet pad removal to accelerate drying; Mr. [redacted] did not want these materials removed and kept responding he will do any repairs himself. It got to the point that this stance was prolonging the project and it wasn't until the adjuster informed him that he should allow us to proceed with our recommendations – that he finally allowed us to remove these materials. I can provide the claims adjuster's number so a representative from the Revdex.com can verify my statements.

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 response from Arizona Flood Squad is filled completely with un true statements.

Regards,

Review: They never gave me an invoice for the work that was done. It took two months just for the insurance company to recieve one. I call and never recieve a call in return, even the insurance can't even recieve a phone call. They charge for things that were never used. They charge for improper work. Meaning they class the job as class 3 when it's only a class one. They have no data to back up there reasoning other than they said so. There's no lab testing to back it up and it's just someone looking at the water damage and saying that it is what they say it is.Desired Settlement: The bill to be adjusted accordingly and for someone to actually return a phone call.

Business

Response:

There is truth to Mr. [redacted]'s statement about the insurance carrier not receiving an invoice for a considerable time. The delay is not due to oversight or any bad intention; of course we want compensated for the work we performed. The delay is due to the volume that we have been receiving in the last quarter due to our attention to detail and skilled staff; at that time we were understaffed for the volume we were receiving from various resources. We work with many insurance carriers and trades and were plainly understaffed; we are still recovering from the surge in referral work and have beefed up staff to be able to handle this volume. The [redacted]'s filed an insurance claim and are only responsible to the contractor for their deductible; that being stated, AZ Flood Squad invoices the carrier directly on behalf of the customer and are compensated by the carrier directly in most cases; sometimes two party checks are issued and customers are provide a copy (All this was communicated to the insureds on the day the job was signed). As always, our customers are entitled to any documentation regarding their home upon request; however, this is the first request I've seen from the customer. The customer must have received a copy at some point to make such statements, "They charge for things that were never used." This statement is broad; I request further explanation to respond accordingly to this. Our customers and their respective carriers are billed for 100 % of the equipment and task which were performed, and 0 % for those that were not provided. If there was a mistake, it will be dealt with accordingly. I don't consider it a mistake if the insurance carrier disagrees with how a project was run. A mistake is something invoiced, that was not provided. Again, further explanation is needed by the client for me to address this point. It is apparent that the carrier has coached the customer on classification and categorizations. The following documentation was present on the first and second page of the invoice the carrier received: Peril: Moisture Intrusion Source: Broken pipe in attic Affected regions: Family R, Living Rm, and KitchenCategory: 3, - due to length of time between water episode and mitigation supported by suspected fungal growth Class: 4, due to bound moisture in framing Remedy: Performed 360 degree moisture inspection, isolated affected areas, adjusted contents to facilitate drying, contained affected areas, removed affected trim, drywall, and insulation; support granite counters, pulled out cabinet without damaging faces, decontaminated framing due to category 3 water, and applied disinfectant before setting up air quality and drying equipment. Notes: - Unfortunately, [redacted] could not be present for walk through with SF field adjuster; however, he was informed by one of my green technicians that the field adjuster isn't allowing us to classify this project as category 3. Just to make things very clear, we're not asking for authorization to designate this project as a category 3. We are telling you it is a category 3. - We are also informing you there are hollow tiles right at base of wall which was affected, and no other area, but don't take my word for it; send out a flooring vendor. I do not have structural engineering experience; however, I suspect that if the hollow tiles were due to the foundation leveling out over time, I would expect to see a uniform pattern which is not present. - Less than 10 sq ft of suspected fungal growth was documented by nine year veteran and supervisor at base of affected wall up some two ft. Supervisor responded initial day. All affected drywall was removed and framing was detail cleaned prior to field adjuster's inspection over course of mitigation; however, suspected fungal growth was sealed up after first identifying it to insureds. This should have been identified in field adjuster's interview with customer. - Date of loss is most likely date of discovery. Loss may have occurred up to three or four days prior to date of discovery. - Demo calculations are based on instruction and photos; technician pulled off job without documenting scope.It should be noted that this loss could have easily been denied, due to the suspected fungal growth which generally indicates a time exceeding 72 hours. Coming back to classification, please note that we identified it as class 4 - which is used to identify bound moisture which results from moisture present several days prior to date of discovery. Mr. [redacted] incorrectly mentioned that we are arguing for class 3. The customer is correct that there isn't a lab test supporting whether or not the suspected fungal growth was indeed fungal growth and/ or mold as his policy does not cover for mold testing, nor did the customer ever request testing or offer to cover it in addition to his deductible. Testing is something not performed in house as this is a conflict of interest. So the idea that we could have simply performed test our-self is not validated. This would in essence be like taking a test and grading it yourself; it is not good business. Mt [redacted] is more than welcome to test anything he wants at his own cost. Our supervisor, whom has 9 years experience responded to the loss on day 1. His intent was to perform as little demolition as possible by removing 2' of drywall at the base of an island type wall where three large open rooms met with vaulted ceilings. He cut drywall out and immediately found a black substance believed to be suspected fungal growth. The walls were saturated and composed of organic materials such as baseboard, drywall, and wood framing; all food sources for suspected fungal growth. The lead technician stopped removing drywall, sealed up the cavity, and scheduled demolition the following day only after a complex containment was built 360 degrees around the affected wall, into 3 rooms, and around a cabinet. A section of cabinet was pulled out without damage; the face removed which allowed the contractor to rebuilt the box and we also saved the granite; a very fragile material to work with, by suspending it. I will gladly submit photos documenting the extend we went to perform this project in the safest and least obstructive measures possible. Unfortunately, with suspected fungal growth involved, protocols change and non structural materials such as drywall are removed; all of it that is affected; then the framing is detailed cleaned through sanding and Hepa vacuuming, then a green rated disinfectant is applied before the structure is dried. The issue with the project was the delay in producing the invoice which admittedly I accept guilt as this file and another 80 to 100 files were stacked over two desk for a period of time with more accumulating each day. This carrier was able to capitalize on this and turn our customer against us; for this I regret; everything else is text book. Additionally, there are no overlapping charges between the remediation performed by AZ Flood Squad and the construction performed by the contractor. Respectfully,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

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.

They still have no proof to say why it's a category 3. They have no evidence to back it up other than someone saying what they think it is and that's what it is. It's a very aggressive tone for have no tests to back up there hypothesis. Even the day the machines were removed they were saying the moisture is up and needs at least one more day. The adjuster asked them to run a test again and magically it was where it was suppose to be at. If it wasn't for the adjuster those machines would have been here another day. An example of the random charges would be like the use of heavy personnel equipment and not once did I see someone with anything fancy on but a mask and they even charging for counter top detachment and my counter was never detached only the 4 inch back splash.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Unfortunately, the only way we can provide conclusive evidence that the suspected fungal growth is fungal growth is through science and testing, which your policy does not cover. I can't offer to cover this expense. I can refer you the [redacted] website so you can learn about classes and categorizations of water; there not interchangeable. The customer's last position was class 3, now its category 3; these groupings imply different criteria. Class refers to amount of water present while category refers to quality of water. Please visit: [redacted]. I will proceed as if customer is referring to quality of water and discuss categorizations of water. Below is the definition of category 3: Category 3. This is the worst classification and is grossly unsanitary. It could cause severe illness or death if ingested. It used to be called black water, and sources include sewer backup, flooding from rivers or streams, toilet overflow with feces, and stagnant liquid that has begun to support bacterial growth. There are three phenom that are considered when categorizing water damage: Source, medium, and duration. In Dustin's case, the source began as clean water (Category 1) and when it came into contact with wall board, paint, and framing it became (category 2) as there are no known building materials to my knowledge which do not containing any chemicals. When walls were opened, a black substance was present on the framing with a wet odor similar to after a rain fall. The substance was present with saturated drywall. It is uncommon to test visible suspected fungal growth as most policies do no cover it. The cost of this is anywhere from $400 to $700 which is difficult for most home owner's to come up with in addition to a deductible which in most cases is $1,000. Secondly, if the policy covers it, there is a coverage cap associated with the policy; therefore, it is common in the industry both by restoration and insurance professionals to make certain assumptions at customer's best interest; allowing the cap to be used for remediation and post testing and not using it to eat up these limited funds on pre-testing something visually present. Most of the time, pre-testing is reserved for cases of suspected cross contamination or when clients are sick and think they have mold/ fungal growth, but nothing is visible. Upon initial arrival, there was no standing water or any water present outside the affected island wall (Water damage was not obvious). There was trapped moisture between the wall and paint resulting in a water bubble. When water is released all of a sudden and with force, you do not find bubbles full of water encapsulated by very thin paint membranes. This particular water bubble was quit large and hidden by a large picture frame; should that bubble have been filled up quickly (Without breaking) I would expect to see the picture frame knocked off the wall; that was not the case. It was removed. Now then, the source of loss was a broken pipe in the attic, some 10' above the floor. The moisture from floor to ceiling was sporadic (Present in some areas and dry in others); the base of the wall was consistently wet at between 10 and 20 inches. Moisture wicks up walls overtime, this is an indication that the water was present for at least 72 hours. The presence of a substance believed to be fungal growth was discovered upon opening the wall cavity and continued up cavity beyond the initial cut mark. This further supports the hypothesis that this water was present more than 72 hours. I would not go so far as to call this long term damage; however, it clearly did not happen the date it was discovered. I think our client is more concerned about having his claim denied than anything else. I don't think there is evidence for long term damage. However, if my category 3 hypothesis is wrong then that means something else is leaking or leaked in the past and was not resolved. Records indicate the current occupants purchased the home April, 12th, 2013. So what this would indicate is one of two things: a skilled home inspector missed signs of water damage: baseboards pulling away from the walls, hollow tiles, expansion of press-board cabinets, brittle drywall, stained drywall, odor, etc and seller omitted water damage or the current occupants overlooked a previous water damage (Fungal growth needs a source of moisture). Lets suppose the home inspector overlooked this damage and buyer omitted leak – this would also mean that two home buyers and their Realtor overlooked the same damage (And any other potential buyers and Realtors looking at the home). The only other solutions I can think of (Aside from my hypothesis) are the current owners overlooked water damage between 4.12.13, but before 1.31.15 or they handled it themselves or had another company handle it and the areas were not properly dried. If the suspected fungal growth is unrelated to this current claim; then it needs an explanation for its presence. Now then, (in less of course owners chose not to disclose a previous loss), there is one common denominator in all these explanations: home owners overlooked water damage at time of purchase, home owners overlooked water damage after purchase of home, and/or home owners overlooked water damage for loss occurring recently, as fungal growth requires a moisture source. What's all this mean, - a small leak released over several days can easily go undetected – it occurs all the time. The length of time before a water episode is discovered and treated plays a role in categorization, as water degrades overtime. You can test this statement out by taking a bottle of water and drinking from it – now leave it out for 3 or 4 days without the cap, then be sure to smell it before you consider drinking it. What happened? It was clean drinking water, where did that odor come from? Now imagine mixing in a little bacteria food for example your drywall, your baseboard, and your framing. Lets speculate, that the substance documented in the attached visual evidence isn't fungal growth at all. The following are a list if things I came up with that may explain the substance, feel free to offer up more ideas. Dirt, terminate trails, natural lumber mold, aged wood, nail staining holes, and so forth. Dirt – this material would not cling to the framing like what is revealed in photos; however suppose it did – a few inspection holes perhaps in one or more closets could shed light on what the other structure members look like. Terminate trails – Please reference the location of the affected island wall. I would expect to see visible damage elsewhere and personally think it would be impractical for an insect to travel to the attic to gain access to a wall when lumber is available 4 inches from ground level just above the slab. Natural lumbar fungal growth – random inspection holes would show a statistical representation of the home. Aged wood – Not all the framing members were affected with in the same picture frame of exposed base cavity; I would expect to see a uniform pattern. Nail staining – typically moisture is involved with these, but again I would expect to see a uniformed pattern. Moving on to billing: There are two schools of thought in the industry; affected materials should be dried within 4 percentage points of unaffected materials or when in reference to wood/ framing anything less than 16 % will not support fungal growth; therefore, it is dry, (But not back to pre-loss condition which is what policy does cover). The technician reported the bulk of the areas were metering at or close to the dry standard of 8 % percentage points, but he did report readings as high as 14 to 16 % in some areas. He did his initial assessment and did intend to leave drying equipment on for an additional day to dry to the dry standard. His readings never changed, after the adjuster questioned him – he stepped out and contacted his supervisor who informed him he is correct; however, it would be satisfactory to pull the equipment in these conditions. Its physics, not Magic. All our technicians utilize General Electric moisture probes. I have attached a photo of Mr. [redacted] conversing with the plumber with a demo guy in the back ground in personal protective equipment in direct sight of the customer. He is wearing a paper mask and coveralls. The demo portion required two days due to extensive time erecting containment. Since, I do not have visual evidence of the respiratory and cartridge that will be removed from the invoice, but not the coveralls the customer did not recall seeing. When a cabinet is detached it is detached from the wall and from the granite, this takes extreme caution as granite is an extremely fragile material. One slip and the carrier and/ or insured can plan on spending thousands of dollars as matching granite doesn't happen, nor does anyone in the industry guarantee granite will not break when handling it (A simple phone survey will support this statement). When we successfully accomplish removing a cabinet from granite or granite from cabinet however, one wants to look at it; both cabinet, and granite detaching are billed in addition to skilled labor hours to accomplish this. Its important to note, the carrier isn't questioning how this was invoiced at all. As we not only save the granite slab which matches another granite slab, but we saved the cabinet face which means only the cabinet box needed replaced. Have we not been able to save one or the other, the insurer would have a construction invoice on their hands four to five times what it was and the customer would have been put out another month until he was back to pre-loss condition. The billing of the cabinets and granite is justified. Mr. [redacted], how soon can I receive payment after I correct your invoice to exclude respirator rental and cartridges? Kindly,[redacted]

We had a horrible experience with this company and believe they were price gouging. Their manger Brad was the most unprofessional of managers we have ever worked with, tried to charge us 3 times ($4800 for something that cost $1275), was threatening, tried to complicate the job and claim that it was 3 times more severe/worse than it was, and he also claimed to own the company (which he does not) when we asked for a supervisor or a superior. I would strongly urge everyone to not use this company and to go elsewhere.