DryMaster

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 company when they initially did the estimate let me know that the estimate was based on a visual inspectionThe estimate would not be valid hours after written based on the paperwork given at the timeAt no point during that initial conversation did any representative of the company state there would be a difference in paying cash or filing a claimWhen the estimate was done for the repair work, the representative asked for payment and I mentioned at that time that I would be filing a claimIt was at this time that the representative stated the company would need to invoice me differently because of the differences in how they bill insurance companiesI Had already received an invoice for the exact same amount as the initial estimate plus the plumbing inspectionThe was no additional damage or issues found after the initial work for the dry out was completedSo, to receive an invoice that is almost 50% higher based on the exact same work seems egregious.When I later spoke with the office representative it was to confirm what was told to the contractor who did the estimate for repair work that I indeed planned to proceed with an insurance claimThe claim wasn't even approved until the end of MaySo, the comments that they had reached out to me for payment prior to that day is not relevantDid the company telephone and leave messages for payment? YesHowever, I had specifically mentioned to representatives early on to email or mail any concerns as I seldom pick up the phone or check messagesAdditionally, in the period between the end of May and mid June, I had been in contact with representatives of the office via phone and email to receive paperwork to initiate the repair workAt no time did anyone ever mention trying to reach me for a paymentWhat was particularly bizarre and unprofessional is that the Vice-President of this company would text me that a lien was being placed on my property but wouldn't text anything about paymentsWhen I spoke to him I informed that I hadn't received a check and that the insurance company would be issuing a replacementHis response was literally, "Too late, I already placed the lien." He then accused me of using the money to "Take a trip to Cabo." When I asked if he'd notified me of the lien by mail and when, he refused to tell me when notice was sentWhen I asked for confirmation about the lien and/or a reference number, he refused to provide that claiming he didn't have it at hand, even though he had just returned from placing the lienTo this date, I've never received anything from the County about a lien, just a text from him, with no reference information, that the lien was removedAfter all this, it would seem that an apology is the least the company could offer [redacted]

DryMaster and it's representatives engaged in billing practices that resulted in an up charge to my insurance company of nearly 50% of the original quoted amountI received a temporary estimate on April at the time of loss for $Approximately 7-days later I received a confirmation of
that amounts via an invoice dated April When the company came to do an estimate for repair work following that date, the representative requested payment for the original $At that time I informed the representative that I would be filing a claim with the insurance companyThe representative informed me that the company would have to send an updated invoice because they "bill insurance companies differently." Sometime around April I received an updated invoice for the same work, wit the original date for $The final approvals for payment were not done until mid MayAt the beginning of June I was in communication with a representative of the company via email to have repair work doneHaving received no, emails or invoices by mail, on June 16, *** *** text messaged that a lien would be placed on my property for non-paymentWhen I spoke with him he would neither give details on when a lien notice was sent, threatened to take my property for non-payment and accused me of using the funds to "go to Cabo." Payment was made that day with a representativeAs a remedy I want a full explanation as to the discrepancy billed my insurance company and what was billed to meIt is especially disconcerting that the original estimate was validated with an invoice, validated again with the request for payment and was only changed when the request to file a claim was madeAs an additional remedy, I would like a written apology from the owner of the company for the manner in which representative *** *** made threatening demands for payment and levied accusations about what was done with insurance funds

DryMaster was contacted by the customer on 3/31/2016 and described water damage to his home. We inspected his home and offered to mitigate the damage from the water intrusion for a cost not to exceed $1,052. We explained that this price was only for drying and not any reconstruction necessary to restore the property to pre-loss condition.  We further explained to the customer that this price would be null and void if he filed an insurance claim and if the claim was deemed a covered peril. Insurance companies decide what final billing will be on covered perils. The customer asked us to perform a plumbing inspection by our plumbers to determine the source of the water intrusion. We gave the customer a discounted price of $150 to perform the plumbing inspection in consideration for the additional drying work.We completed the plumbing inspection and determined the water intrusion to be caused by a faulty washer machine. We were then contracted by the customer to start drying his property on 4/1/2016. We set drying equipment and removed affected building material. We deemed the customer's property to be dry on 4/4/2016. The customer asked us to provide him with an estimate to patch the drywall, fix the crown molding, texture and paint.On 4/6/2016 we emailed and mailed the customer an invoice for $1,202 for drying and the plumbing inspectionWe completed the repair estimate using the industry standard software called Xactimate and sent it to the home owner on 4/7/2016. He explained to us that he was still unsure if he was going to file an insurance claim. He told us that he would contact us when he was ready to proceed with the repair's to his home. On 4/18/2016 the customer called us and told us that he would be filing an insurance claim. We input all of the work we completed into the industry standard software Xactimate and created a scope of work in the amount of $1,516.34 and submitted the scope to the customer's insurance carrier for approval. We discussed the amount with the customer and he told us that moving forward all discussions about the price should be discussed with his carrier.On 4/19/2016 we emailed and mailed the customer a new invoice in the amount written in the industry standard software Xactimate.On 5/6/2016 we confirmed with the customers insurance carrier that the insurance company agreed to our scope of work and sent the customer a check based on the amount we submitted on 4/18/2016.Between 5/6/2016 and 6/28/2016 we made 12 attempts to contact the customer about payment without any response.On the morning of 6/28/2016 we sent a text to the customer explaining that we have made many attempts to collect payment and confirmed that he was paid by his insurance carrier for the work we completed. We further explained that we had no other option but to lien his property later that morning if he still did not respond. Later that morning we  filed a mechanic's lien against the customer's property in compliance with State of California law. The customer called that evening and paid his bill in full.On 6/29/2016 we released the mechanics lien against the customer's property. We believe the customer's statement to be without merit as our contract clearly states the expectations of payment and also states our right to lien if payment is not received once the insurance carrier has sent a check to the customer. Furthermore, all of our practices are of the utmost professionalism. The software we use to create our pricing is based on fair market value and is regulated by the insurance industry. We are a preferred vendor for many of the major insurance carriers in Southern California and have gone through rigorous vetting processes in order to be on those lists. A "not to exceed" price is based on cash payment from the customer upon completion of the work. If the customer decides to file a claim, there is additional administrative work for us to do and we need be paid for that work. Plus we have to wait for the insurance company to approve and process the claim to be paid. Thus the reason for charging insurance prices.  The customer was unwilling to respond to our many attempts to discuss payment. We had no other option to insure payment for our work other than to lien the property. Once payment was made the lien was released immediately. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any further questions concerning this matter.[redacted]Vice President[redacted]@drymaster.comwww.drymaster.comCell: 949 632 5657Office :949 492 1100Fax: 949 492 1166

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 company when they initially did the estimate let me know that the estimate was based on a visual inspection. The estimate would not be valid 48 hours after written based on the paperwork given at the time. At no point during that initial conversation did any representative of the company state there would be a difference in paying cash or filing a claim. When the estimate was done for the repair work, the representative asked for payment and I mentioned at that time that I would be filing a claim. It was at this time that the representative stated the company would need to invoice me differently because of the differences in how they bill insurance companies. I Had already received an invoice for the exact same amount as the initial estimate plus the plumbing inspection. The was no additional damage or issues found after the initial work for the dry out was completed. So, to receive an invoice that is almost 50% higher based on the exact same work seems egregious.When I later spoke with the office representative it was to confirm what was told to the contractor who did the estimate for repair work that I indeed planned to proceed with an insurance claim. The claim wasn't even approved until the end of May. So, the comments that they had reached out to me for payment prior to that day is not relevant. Did the company telephone and leave messages for payment? Yes. However, I had specifically mentioned to representatives early on to email or mail any concerns as I seldom pick up the phone or check messages. Additionally, in the period between the end of May and mid June, I had been in contact with representatives of the office via phone and email to receive paperwork to initiate the repair work. At no time did anyone ever mention trying to reach me for a payment. What was particularly bizarre and unprofessional is that the Vice-President of this company would text me that a lien was being placed on my property but wouldn't text anything about payments. When I spoke to him I informed that I hadn't received a check and that the insurance company would be issuing a replacement. His response was literally, "Too late, I already placed the lien." He then accused me of using the money to "Take a trip to Cabo." When I asked if he'd notified me of the lien by mail and when, he refused to tell me when notice was sent. When I asked for confirmation about the lien and/or a reference number, he refused to provide that claiming he didn't have it at hand, even though he had just returned from placing the lien. To this date, I've never received anything from the County about a lien, just a text from him, with no reference information, that the lien was removed. After all this, it would seem that an apology is the least the company could offer. 
[redacted]

Dear [redacted]The customer's account  of events are inaccurate or misunderstood. We have confirmation from our employee that they did make the customer aware of the difference in charges if an insurance claim is filed. Once the customer filed an insurance claim they informed us to no longer discuss charges with them but to speak directly to his carrier about our services. We sent our scope of work to the carrier and the carrier agreed that our scope of work was within industry standard guideline. The carrier compensated the customer for the work that we performed and sent them a check. Our scope and invoice was not almost 50% higher. It was a small increase in accordance with the additional work that was completed and the insurance company agreed and paid the customer accordingly. Furthermore, if the insurance company thought our work or charge was egregious they would never agree to that price. The customer was never accused of using the money to take a trip to Cabo. This entire process could have been avoided had the customer responded to our many documented attempts to collect payment. As a contractor our only insurance policy to collect payment for customers who do not pay their bill is to file a mechanics lien. We were well within our right and followed all State of California law in recording a lien on this customers property. Once we were paid for services rendered the lien was released. We did not charge this customer for the cost to record or release the lien which is within our legal right. Through this entire process we used absolute professionalism and respect for this customer.If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them. Thank you.