In Response to the customer, ***, we’re disappointed that she didn’t receive full satisfaction from our services. Unfortunately, rodent damage is considered “environmental damage” by both ***’s and our insurance adjustersShe wasn’t able to get damage coverage nor were weAfter
speaking with *** over the phone and multiple email conversations, we came to a mutual agreement that we would do our best to cover the assessed damageInitially the damage was thought to be possible wire damage and upholsteryAfter further review, *** contacted us personally stating that there was no wire damage, but actual dirt assumed to be damage that showed up on her picture that she sent usOur company delivered the pontoon and ran the motor on the waterEverything was intact and safe by all measures as the boat was delivered accurately with the motor running and safely on timeAfter concurring with *** that there was in fact no wire damage but dirt as she stated in her email; we agreed through email to hire a professional upholstery repair person to assess the damageThey looked at the pontoon on May 6th, Their professional quote for the damage repair was $+ taxBefore the upholstery person was hired at our company’s expense to assess the damage on ***’s pontoon, our company offered to settle with *** for the amount of $She reluctantly declined and felt obligated to moreAfter further review of this situation, *** was able to sell the boat for face value in today’s market based off current market value minus depreciationThe $damage was no longer an issue to be addressed as the boat was sold as isAs far as our agreement in this matter, we offered more than market value to repair the damage and were declined by the boat owner
In Response to the customer, ***, we’re disappointed that she didn’t receive full satisfaction from our services. Unfortunately, rodent damage is considered “environmental damage” by both ***’s and our insurance adjustersShe wasn’t able to get damage coverage nor were weAfter
speaking with *** over the phone and multiple email conversations, we came to a mutual agreement that we would do our best to cover the assessed damageInitially the damage was thought to be possible wire damage and upholsteryAfter further review, *** contacted us personally stating that there was no wire damage, but actual dirt assumed to be damage that showed up on her picture that she sent usOur company delivered the pontoon and ran the motor on the waterEverything was intact and safe by all measures as the boat was delivered accurately with the motor running and safely on timeAfter concurring with *** that there was in fact no wire damage but dirt as she stated in her email; we agreed through email to hire a professional upholstery repair person to assess the damageThey looked at the pontoon on May 6th, Their professional quote for the damage repair was $+ taxBefore the upholstery person was hired at our company’s expense to assess the damage on ***’s pontoon, our company offered to settle with *** for the amount of $She reluctantly declined and felt obligated to moreAfter further review of this situation, *** was able to sell the boat for face value in today’s market based off current market value minus depreciationThe $damage was no longer an issue to be addressed as the boat was sold as isAs far as our agreement in this matter, we offered more than market value to repair the damage and were declined by the boat owner