Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc

I was basically abandoned by this company, and told to get my own contractors. No handshake, nothing, I was told it’s my emotions running wild, how terrible to say that to anyone, and more than one time. I was promised Doppler Radar to see if it’s the condo roof causing the water damage, and John just said he was too busy, no calls, everything was done behind my back, as to not wanting to work with me. There was a rain storm a few days in a row, my ceiling started leaking, and it broke through, upstairs bathroom was flooded by three inches of water, Giertsen basically guaranteed me that they would find the cause, they thought it was my plumbing, but it was not. Since my condo manager was in my home the entire visit, she said it was not the roof, so it seemed to me to be a conflict of interest. I was like who aardvark you working for, me , the home owner, or the condo manager. I did speak my mind of course, who wouldn’t. Giertsen did open up my ceilings, put two of their fans up to dry my living room and kitchen area up, but left me stranded, without even trying to explain, or work things out. I didn’t see it coming. We are two women trying to get by, and life is hard enough without a company saying that my mind is playing tricks on me. I was upset about the situation with the condo manager sitting, and watching everything, when it’s not her home. Giertsen should not have been dealing with her at all, if they didn’t want to deal with the roof issues. So, L seemed nice, quiet, polite, I wish I could have worked with her, I truly believe it was the strong personality of one man. I only wished for a phone call, and a goodbye. One incident I recall, talking to the man in charge, he hung up on me before I even said goodbye, I was still conversating. I thought, how rude. He was always too busy in a hurry. Is this a Good company, I don’t know ????‍♀️. I don’t like being steamrolled, by both the condo manager, and this company in Milwaukee. I just want everything back to normal, nothing more or less. Very unfortunate, very sad.

Review: At the time Giertsen was hired, I was under the pressure of my home being on fire and being told by the insurance company that Giertsen was on their preferred provider list. Giertsen quoted me an initial amount of $49,000 to repair my home, then an adjusted amount of $115,000 to repair my home. I signed off on that estimate. Giertsen did NOT provide me with any further updated quotes, just proceeded with the work. During their work to repair my home, there were various actions taken by Giertsen which resulted in additional damage and/or repair work, an example being that I have a disabled son. I was very clear with Giertsen carpenters which way a door needed to open and why. Despite a 1/2 hour discussion on why the door needed to be hung a certain way, and their assurance it would be hung the way I told them, they put the door on backwards stating "that's the way it should be hung". They ended up re-doing it. Same with the back patio doors. Before the fire, they were flush to the sill in the opening. During reconstruction, I explained that I needed the doors flush at the sill opening so my disabled son could get in and out. When they installed the new doors, there was a 2-1/2 inch rise that my disabled son would have had to try and raise his foot above to get in and out of the house or trip attempting to do so. As it was, non-handicapped adults were tripping over the sill. Giertsen advised the doors could not be lowered and I fought with them to install mini ramps so my son could get in and out. Giertsen informed me that the north wall of my home was collapsing, leaning into my back yard by two inches, and that they needed immediate approval to repair the wall. I agreed (which was included in the $115,000 estimate). To date, my wall is currently now leaning out at a rate of 2 1/2 inches, interior door frames are shifting as are windows frames, the roof appears to be dropping, an arch created by Giertsen carpenters is pulling away from the wall, a new cabinet appears to be splitting across the grain, newly installed heat vents that go nowhere, etc. When I brought the leaning wall to the attention of Eric S[redacted] of Giertsen, his reply was that they only "reinforced" the wall, they did not “repair” it, and that if the Franklin Building Inspector did not bring his level to check Giertsen's work, Giertsen was not responsible. In reviewing the bill Giertsen submitted to my insurance company, Giertsen charged my insurance company for "replace exterior wall”. So, my question is how can they charge for “replace” and then claim only “reinforce”? There is a major difference between the two, and leads to yet another possibility of insurance fraud on the behalf of Giertsen Company. When my home was finally deemed completed, I was told the amount was over my insurance coverage of $226,000 and that I owed Giertsen an additional $78,000. Keep in mind, the last price quote I had heard from Giertsen was $115,000. I demanded to know why no one kept me informed about going over my coverage amount, and why no other estimates were provided to me for approval. I did not get any answers, just shrugs. When I demanded copies of every invoice, timesheet and credit slip so I could review them, Giertsen told me THEY would perform the review of these documents. Five and a half (5 ½) months later, Giertsen finally completed their review and informed me that they "discovered $50,000 of accounting errors” and determined that I only owed them $28,000, which I do not agree with. Also at this time I was given additional invoices NOT previously provided to me. Giertsen employees did not do the jobs that they were hired to do. Giertsen was also responsible for the packing, removal, cleaning, storage and return of my personal property. This was not fully done. I have $18,000 worth of personal property that was damaged or missing due to the direct handling of Giertsen employees, NOT due to the fire. This has been repeatedly brought to Giertsen's attention. Giertsen repeatedly told me to just report it to my insurance company as part of the fire loss. I REFUSE to commit insurance fraud!! These items were not a direct part of the fire loss; these items were lost and/or damaged due to the direct handling and negligence of Giertsen employees. Therefore, I believe Giertsen's bonding company should be response for full reimbursement and/or replacement of these items, NOT my insurance company. Giertsen has refused to provide me their bonding company information. No resolution has been reached in this regard. As for the $28,000, in an e-mail sent to me by Eric S[redacted], Mr. S[redacted] advised that if I have the outstanding $17,000+ due Giertsen from my insurance company, that Giertsen would forgive the $28,000 and provide me with a contractor's lien release. I agreed to that, and on December 24, 2013, signed over the insurance check to Mr. S[redacted] and asked for the lien release. Mr. S[redacted] informed me that due to the rush of the holidays, he "forgot" the lien release, but would mail it to me after the holidays. When I had not received it two weeks later, I called Mr. S[redacted] to inquire where the release was, only to be informed that Mr. S[redacted] "could not recall that conversation". and proceeded to file a lien on my property for $28,000. This is only the tip of the iceberg, so to say. There is not enough room here to put everything down. Upon your request, I can provide further information. The unscrupulous actions repeatedly performed by the employees of this company need to be brought to the attention of potential future customers.Desired Settlement: Lien removed, wall and other items fixed and full reimbursement for lost and damaged personal property.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com: The complaint #[redacted] is lengthy and has many emotionally charged accusations being leveled against Giertsen and its staff. Giertsen specializes in the insurance restoration field and is in fact, on many Insurance Company’s preferred vendor programs as the complainant states. In our opinion, the complainant’s written discourse has many inaccuracies, has misunderstandings as to construction details, has falsehoods as to our performance, has pointed accusations of dishonesty and strongly infers insurance fraud was committed by Giertsen. Labeling Giertsen employees as being personally unscrupulous seems “over the top” at best. Our sympathies go out to the complainant as to the duress created by the fire and the emotional attachment to the personal possessions that were damaged or destroyed by the fire or the efforts to suppress the fire. The reconstruction process has been an emotional roller coaster for the complainant as it was not discovered until the demolition phase that additional framing work would be necessary to restore the home to attain a certificate of occupancy from the city building inspector. We understand the difficulty of the process and empathize with the complainant but we truly feel that we have more than honored our contractual agreement to restore the home and personal property. Giertsen was then placed under the constraints of a late discovered limited insurance proceeds amount. As required in a building permit the city inspector has inspected the home multiple times and the work performed by Giertsen has passed every inspection to both our engineer’s strict construction standards and the building codes. Specifically the Universal Dwelling Codes - UDC, for re-framing walls and roof lines were strictly adhered to, thereby allowing us to pass multiple inspections as part of the reconstruction process. A certificate of occupancy was attained on our initial request with the insured able to move home as scheduled. The Giertsen employees involved made every effort imaginable to attempt to settle this matter prior to being reluctantly forced to file a standard construction lien to protect our financial interest for work and materials provided above and beyond the insurance policy limits. We have time and date stamped documentation of the multiple estimates provided, extensive volumes of documented e-mail communication, met 5 times totaling 20 plus hours specifically to address concerns with the complainant and a trusted family friend, who is a CPA. The Insurance Company had a 20 plus year Senior claims adjuster facilitate settlement discussions for over a year whereupon the Insurance Company issued funds to the insured to the full extent that the policy limits allowed. This lengthy time line and delay was a request by the insured to put together a complete list of personal property items damaged or missing from the fire loss. We reviewed each of the insurance scope of work claims and later reviewed each warranty claim. Giertsen completely satisfied the insurance company that each and every issue had been fully addressed. The unfortunate reality with older homes that have seen multiple additions, remodeling changes and settling is that not every wall, door closure jamb or a sagging roof line is going to be like new. Our repairs were limited to fire / water repairs and our scope of work is therefore an agreed to document by the insurance provider following and exceeding standard construction practices. The complainant has an insurance policy which was to provide “like – kind - quality” which when viewed in “before and after” photos had been surpassed when the project was completed. Walls that had been tipping were straightened, roof ridge lines that had been sagging were strengthened, interior space was maximized and better utilized thru design enhancements and an older dated interior was given an attractive updated facelift. Though we believe that this home’s value is greatly increased due to our successful efforts to provide a quality service fire loss repair for a competitive value we could not meet the complainant’s expectations. As to the newly listed warrantable items mentioned in the complaint, Giertsen will be reaching out to the complainant to resolve them.

Consumer

Response:

Review: Giertsen was contracted to winterize a house after a fire. When we re-entered the house to begin restoration, the pipes had burst resulting in significant damage to plumbing.Desired Settlement: Refund the money I had to pay to restore plumbing to a workable condition.

Business

Response:

Attached is an extensive trail of communications with Mr. [redacted] and the signed contract for “Temporary” Emergency Services in respect to his “winterization” concern. I felt it important to include an e-mail from early April that Mr. [redacted] also received an estimate to repair his property for $167,110.25 from the Giertsen Company of Wisconsin. This is to demonstrate that the overall mitigation efforts we performed was not a casual call to a plumber to “winterize” the lake home to let it sit vacant over the winter months. These winter after-the-fire work environments are safety hazards filled with broken glass, holes in floors, no lights, water in the basements, no heat, and ice having formed wherever water was sprayed or pooled. It is unfortunate, that for whatever reasons his insurance policy did not cover, with a supplement, the resulting damage from an extensive Saturday afternoon fire during a 4 to 5 hour time window of well below freezing temperatures. His recall during such a tumultuous time differs from our recollection which can be supported by our internal documents and the City of Milwaukee fire notification system which shows an initial fire notice going out at 1:16 PM. Our technicians were mobilized after 4:00PM. During this time gap, temperatures were at zero degrees while the exposed building was opened up for fire suppression efforts. This was then followed up with cause and origin investigation efforts and then concluding with Giertsen being tasked to perform multiple mitigation efforts which were being performed with dwindling daylight.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com: In reading the latest complaint, after my repeated attempts to address those specific concerns, it seems evident that Mr. **.. is circling back into areas that I felt I had reasonably addressed prior. I have given specific details as to the timing of events dating back to February 22nd, the specifics as to the Giertsen crew who was on-site, actual quantities of anti-freeze supplies that were utilized, what general efforts for mitigation we performed, what horrific weather conditions existed that day, a general comment as to the fire suppression efforts which were taken which would have impacted the structure, what multiple post- fire visits from the [redacted]s occurred, along with copies of the estimate to repair for $167,000.00 with the @$6,000.00 plumbing repairs noted. The time that has passed from the date of the fire, with an over 5 month delay, to the point of a reconstruction review by the contractor working on the property seems to make my effort to be factual somewhat misplaced. In a response about August 2nd I stated that [redacted] believed that by the time we were on site that the water pipes were already frozen. This is supported by the fact that the [redacted]s was asked to return to shut off the water which had re-flooded the basement. This is an indication that shut-off valves were in-operable due to the frozen condition of the supply lines. It is generally accepted that at 20 degrees water in pipes will freeze and will burst water lines and traps within a short period of exposure. In a response dated about August 5th I stated that a crew member’s recall was that 3 gallons of RV anti-freeze was used, that a toilet was busted and that traps were removed. A further recollection is that a drain trap in the fire origin area was not removed due to our restricted access. In a response dated about July 31st I stated that to make an exact determination of the integrity of the systems in place after the fire is unimaginable. Is the real issue that the scope of work was not totally accurate in an ACV insured fire loss leaving a shortfall of funds to restore the property to a pre-loss condition? Possibly my next sentences will be a misplaced comment or will be considered a subterfuge of the facts. Mr. ** made a business choice and knowingly had purchased an ACV policy. The policy he purchased to save himself money, coupled with a 5 month delay in reconstruction, left him with a potential financial shortfall. Our normal protocol was followed in our emergency efforts to save his plumbing. These specific efforts were billed out for $183.00. The insurance company never questioned any of our normal and customary charges or the outcome. Thanks. [redacted]

Consumer

Response: