Sign in

Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc.

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc.? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc.

Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc. Reviews (3)

Giertsen is truly sorry for the losses you have experienced due to the fire, the fire suppression efforts and the mistakes made on Giertsen’s behalf. Please trust me that any mistake made was not deliberate nor willful. After reading the pages of your most recent and repeated concerns, I can only draw a single conclusionThe communication misunderstandings and accusations only seem to be compounding and any attempts to explain or defend the past only seems to heighten your frustration with Giertsen and particularly myself. I have admitted repeatedly that we are not a perfect organization, at times we will make mistakes and I sincerely believe have made every effort to acknowledge when we are in the wrong. We have met over times with each meeting being joined by other individuals, who I believe are willing to listen thoughtfully, without bias examine your every concern, and then offer reasonable suggestions for a solution. In my opinion, some of the listed concerns no longer have a solution at this time. Although I understand the rationale behind calling a Carpenter’s Union official, having patio doors inspected by Weather Tech, a “hypothetical question” poised to a *** *** agent, talking to a few contractors about rebuild practices or listing out the casual observations by visitors or family friends does little to substantiate, let alone resolve, what an issue is in respect to the reconstruction efforts provided. We have met repeatedly with your Senior Property Insurance adjuster along with your friend who is a highly trained financial advisor to no avail. In the past you have mentioned you also have spoken to the City Building inspector for which we have never received a notice to correct any of our structural workmanship. This is a very personal loss to yourself and although you claim in your recent letter to have “moved beyond that point” I see no wavering or altering of opinions which have not resolved this matter to either parties satisfaction. I am not trying to minimize any of your lengthy concerns but at this point, “ the water has gone over the dam.” Many if not all of the concerns are simply a re-telling of how you felt you were wronged. I sadly believe that this is an extremely personal matter that does not allow you to see an opportunity to put this matter behind you and move forward. There is not a perfect solution to resolve all the concerns you have raised. At this time, I would suggest we attempt arbitration or mediation services thru the Revdex.com. Please note that, after reading the pamphlet provided by the Revdex.com, that the arbitration process will end the dispute while the mediation process would only possibly help us reach a solution without a decision as to right or wrong

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
In response to Giertsen’s
reply received May 5, 2015, on May 14, 2015 I submit the following:Giertsen, through their attorney, has yet again skirted the
issues at hand and have tried to make me out to be an it that fails to
comprehend “losses” that I “have
experienced due to the fire, the fire suppression efforts and the mistakes made
on Giertsen’s behalf”.I again state that I do understand the losses that I have
experienced due to the fire and the fire suppression efforts.  I also understand the losses I have experienced
due to the direct actions of Giertsen employees, NOT the fire and/or
suppression efforts.  There is a huge
difference.  A difference which Giertsen
obviously does not understand or comprehend, and continuously refuses to
acknowledge.I will concede that Giertsen’s correspondence of May 5,
2015 to the Revdex.com is the very first time that Giertsen
has admitted to making “mistakes”,
although they do not identify what they feel their mistakes are, and that
[I/we] should “trust” them “that any mistake
made was not deliberate nor willful”. 
How can Giertsen, in good conscience make this statement when multiple
construction details specifically
discussed with Giertsen employees were totally ignored and then had to
be re-done?  To me this seems to be blatantly
deliberate, especially after having been specifically discussed, with notes
taken by Giertsen employees and Giertsen sub-contractors, PRIOR to the work
being performed.  I have repeatedly asked for Giertsen to provide to me their
written notice(s) advising me that I was close to and/or going over the limits
of my insurance policy, along with copies of my written authorization(s) for Giertsen
to proceed after receiving their overage notice(s).  This request was made again in my May 3, 2015
correspondence to the Revdex.com.  Yet again, Giertsen
has not provided any documentation, nor was this subject even addressed in
their response to the Revdex.com.  Yet again, Giertsen
has chosen to ignore this extremely important legal matter.  I
would really like an explanation as to how Giertsen can claim to have “no knowledge as to the limits of my
insurance coverage”, yet provide reconstruction, packing, cleaning, storing
and “returning” services without any “knowledge” as to how much they can bill
out or will be reimbursed.  However, Giertsen
DID provide not only me, but also to Floor Tech, a budget amount as to the
limit which could be spent for flooring materials.  I stuck to this budget.  I was not given a budget for any other item
during the remaining construction.  This
seems very confusing in a sense, when Giertsen claims to have no knowledge of
limits, yet Giertsen sets a specific dollar amount to be spent on a particular
item.  Is this their business practice
with all clients?  I find it very hard to
believe this business practice was limited to just me.My
point is when given a budget I can stick to it. 
As stated earlier in this letter, at no time in this process (except for
the flooring) was I given a goal amount, allowance, overall budget or financial
status/update.  Not until the majority of
the work was completed did Giertsen apprise me that I owed the +$78,000.For
the umpteenth time, I again request an explanation as to how Giertsen can initially
claim that I owe them over $78,000.00, then, only after I demanded a
review of all invoices, timesheets, sub-contractor invoices, credit slips,
etc. tell me (five months later) that they
have “discovered” $50,000.00 of
“accounting errors”, and claim I “now only” owe them $28,465.30”.  I point out again, this is a far
cry from the initial +$78,000 they claimed I owed them.Again I would like to
point out that, had I not insisted upon a review of all
invoices, credit slips, timesheets, etc. Giertsen could have theoretically
obtained $50,000 worth of fraudulent charges. 
Giertsen states that we (and the public) should “trust” them?In Giertsen’s summary
e-mail sent to me on October 19, 2013, Giertsen had indicated that if I had the
outstanding structural amount due from the insurance company in the amount of
$17,980.74 released to them, “The
structural policy overage consisting of labor, unpaid B2B invoices and
materials would be nullified for an amount of $28,465.30 with lien
waivers being given to yourself.”, i.e., the $28,465.30 “overage”
allegedly due from me would be written off and the lien waiver would be given
to me.On December 24, 2013 at
approximately 9:12 a.m., this insurance check in the amount of $17,980.74 was
endorsed by me and handed to Eric S[redacted] ([redacted] at Giertsen)
in person.  I asked Mr. S[redacted] for the lien release.  Mr.
S[redacted] advised me that with the hectic time of the holiday season, he “forgot”
to bring the lien release, but that he would mail it to me next
week.  When I did not receive the lien release in the mail, I called
Mr. S[redacted], who conveniently “could not recall that
conversation”.  On January 7, 2015, despite
their written assurance they would provide me a lien
release if I had my insurance company release the $17,980.74 structural payment
(which I had done), Giertsen Company proceeded to file a Prime Contractor Claim
for Lien on my property.  Yet again, an example of Giertsen Company
saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.  Would someone please explain to me why
Giertsen should be trusted?My past meetings with
[redacted] at [redacted] 
Hall was to verify that Giertsen’s claims were true and accurate, e.g.,
Giertsen claimed the Plumbing Inspector demanded my faucet in my laundry tub be
cut off and Giertsen stated the inspector allegedly stood there watching while
Giertsen employees cut it off (not true - according to the Plumbing Inspector,
he told them to put a back flow check valve on, NOT cut off the faucet, and he
did not watch them cut it off); that Giertsen had been ordered to install a
door bell to bring my home up to city code (not true – no such codes exists in
Franklin); that the Electrical Inspector told Giertsen the circuit breaker box
had to be replaced (not true – the Electrical Inspector said this work was
completed without his instruction to do so).Because of Giertsen’s
comment that they had “never received a notice to correct any of our structural
workmanship”, on May 8, 2015, at my request, Mr. Fred B[redacted], [redacted] was at my residence to inspect several
issues with the construction performed by Giertsen Company.  A copy of his inspection report is attached
hereto.  Please take careful note of the
last line.  I would like to note here
that when I first brought the leaning wall to the attention of Giertsen, Mr. S[redacted]
took various measurements along the north wall, in the presence of my Senior
Insurance Adjuster and agreed that the wall was out of plumb two (2) inches,
and that Mr. S[redacted] stated “if the building inspector did not bring his level
to check our work and he signed off on it, we are not responsible” and further
stated at that time that Giertsen did not “replace the exterior wall” (as they
had charged my insurance company), but merely “reinforced” the wall.  (Another indication of possible fraud?)I would like to
reiterate, one last time, that regardless of how many times Giertsen states
differently, I have been able to move on from the loss directly due to the fire.What I am having a hard
time with is Giertsen’s refusal to acknowledge and correct the leaning north
wall and their blatant refusal to take responsibility for the previously
mentioned personal property losses and damages directly caused by Giertsen employee(s) deliberate actions, and
Giertsen’s insistence that I “just report it to your [my] insurance company”.  To me that is fraud, and I want no part of
it.  I want Giertsen to correct the
structural problems they have created, and to replace items deliberately
damaged, destroyed and/or missing caused
from the direct and deliberate actions of their employees.  Giertsen has previously been provided with a
detailed list of these items.I would also like to
point out that yesterday I did receive an e-mail from Eric S[redacted] requesting a
time to review certain (incorrectly quoted and new non-quoted) items brought to
the attention of the Revdex.com in my previous correspondence.  I have not yet responded to Mr. S[redacted], as I
was awaiting the report from the Franklin Building Inspector, and filing this
reply with the Revdex.com before doing so.
At this time I am not
sure that I can agree to arbitration. For the last three (3) years, my full
time job has been trying to find a full time job, and I cannot afford it.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
In response to Giertsen’s reply received
April 24, 2015, on May 3, 2015 I submit the following:As Giertsen claims I owe them monies
above and beyond my insurance coverage, I would appreciate receiving copies of
Giertsen’s written notice(s) to me that Giertsen was getting close to and/or
going over the limits of my policy, my written acknowledgement of such
notice(s), as well as my written authorization to proceed beyond the limits of
my insurance policy as outlined to me in writing by Giertsen.  Yes, as Giertsen has pointed out in paragraph
3 of their reply, they have filed a construction lien “. . . for work and materials
provided above and beyond the insurance policy limits.”  An overage that they, Giertsen, neglected to
inform me of until after the fact.  An
overage, that in actuality, after I demanded a review of all charges, turned out to be $50,000 less than the $78,000 they originally
quoted the overage to be.  I also have volumes of e-mail communications.  While Giertsen invoices do indicate a date and time at the top, that does not mean I received these documents on that specific date or at that specific time.  In actuality, I did not receive the bulk of these invoices until they were handed to me at a meeting on September 13, 2013 at my insurance adjusters office.I do not agree with Giertsen’s comments
in paragraph 2 of their response, i.e., Giertsen has not “. . . more than honored our contractual agreement
to restore the home and personal property.” 
Please see the following paragraphs for explanation.  Also, I was not able to move into my home “as
scheduled”.  I would like to state that I am not
naive.  I do understand that I have
suffered a huge loss, and that there are many, many items destroyed by the fire that I will never
have or see again.  I get it.  I have accepted it and moved beyond that
point.I have, however, not moved beyond the
point of items that were deliberately taken and/or destroyed and/or lost due
to the direct result of Giertsen employee handling.  These items were not destroyed as a
direct result the fire, and as such, Giertsen should step up to the plate,
admit the direct negligence and wrongdoing on the part of their employees
handling of my property, and replace these items to the
best of their ability (based on item availability as some items are not
replaceable), not just offer a measly “settlement” amount, which is not even
enough to replace the items deliberately destroyed and/or lost by the direct
handling of Giertsen employees.  Example
– West Bend slow cooker (lid, crock, base, cord) was packed and removed from my
home by Giertsen employees.  The lid
only was returned.  No crock, no
base, no cord, just the lid.  As their
employee was directly responsible for the loss of my slow cooker (NOT the fire), I
feel Giertsen should buy me one to replace it. 
Giertsen management has advised they feel I should report this loss to
my insurance company as part of the fire loss. 
To me, this advice provided by Giertsen management is indicative of
insurance fraud, as this item was NOT destroyed in the fire – it was misplaced and/or
destroyed by the direct handling and removal of a Giertsen employee.  Why
should my insurance company pay for the damage and/or loss deliberately created
by a Giertsen employee?  I have
repeatedly asked this question to Giertsen, only to repeatedly be told to
report it to MY insurance company.  My
insurance company did not hire, nor do they employee the Giertsen employee(s).  My insurance company does not directly pay
Giertsen employee wages.  Why should my
insurance company be responsible for the deliberate actions of Giertsen
employees?  When I asked Giertsen for the
name and contact information for their bonding company, they refused to provide
that information and again told me to report my losses to my insurance
company.  My feelings are the same with
regard to all of the other items that Giertsen employees were directly
responsible for the loss and/or damage of, e.g. my insurance company should not
be responsible for the loss of those items. 
Giertsen Company should be responsible, at full replacement value, not depreciated
value.  I would still have these items, items that were not damaged due to the fire, if the Giertsen employees had not damaged,
lost or destroyed them. Two lists of damaged and missing items, due to the direct negligence of Giertsen employee handling, totaling $14,153.62 had been submitted to Giertsen for their review and payment.  Giertsen offered me $2,701.68 in settlement.  Not acceptable.  I want Giertsen to go out to [redacted], etc. and purchase the items that are still available for replacement.  They lost and/or damaged them, they can replace them.  I also understand there are items that
are irreplaceable, such as my wedding pictures. 
Giertsen has not even offered an apology for the loss of these.  The comment Giertsen made to me regarding my wedding pictures was “oh
well, st happens” [a direct
quote from the Giertsen employee handling my case when he was informed of the
missing albums].  This would be an
unacceptable response to anyone in this position, not just me.  Oh, by the way, for clarification, these
wedding pictures were located in my walk-in closet in the master bedroom,
together with my husband’s death book. 
These were NOT directly involved in the fire, and there was no water
damage in this closet, only smoke.  It is
assumed that they were packed up together (as this is what I was lead to
believe by Giertsen employees) and removed allegedly for ozone cleaning.  The death book was returned.  The wedding pictures were not.In
response to Giertsen’s reply received April 24, 2015, I further reject the
company’s response for the following reasons:In Giertsen’s response, they opine that
my “written disclosure 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.”  [sic]I
would appreciate Giertsen advising what they deem to be “many inaccuracies”. 
Everything I have put down is true.I
would appreciate Giertsen advising what they deem to be “misunderstandings as
to constructions details”.  I am not a professional carpenter, nor have I
ever inferred that I was.  As previously
stated I received a phone call at work from a Giertsen employee stating that my
“north wall was leaning out by two (2) inches and that Giertsen needed
immediate approval to fix this or I stand the chance of the north wall of my
home collapsing into my back yard”.  Of
course, under this type of pressure, I agreed to Giertsen “fixing” the
problem.  I discovered this was not
“fixed”, (as I had been told and lead to believe by Giertsen employees), when I
installed some plant shelving next to one of the back patio doors.  There is a visible gap between the shelving
and the wall.  My first assumption was
that the shelving unit needed to be shimmed. 
Image my shock when the level indicated the shelving was perfect, and
that the entire wall was leaning outward by a full two (2) inches!!!  When I brought this to the attention of
Giertsen, I was informed by a manager level Giertsen employee that Giertsen
only “reinforced” the wall, that they did not “replace” the wall.  After this meeting, I then took it upon
myself to call the Carpenters Union and described the north wall and the
related problems.  The Union official I
spoke to advised that an experienced
carpenter would have and should have pulled the wall back in, especially with the roof rafters being newly
constructed and replaced.  This
was not done.  Had this been done, the
wall would NOT be leaning out.  As
Giertsen charged my insurance company for “replace exterior wall”
and Giertsen admitted that it did NOT replace the wall, what is the
misunderstanding?  By the
way, the wall continues to move, as it is now leaning out two and one-half (2
½”) in areas along the north wall.  Can
Giertsen advise when the movement of this wall will cease?  Oh, and it is NOT settling due to being an
“older” home (paragraph 4 of Giertsen's reply), as this is allegedly “new” construction.  And yes, the basement wall remains plumb and
level, while the wall that sits upon it that Giertsen built, or only reinforced
(they apparently can’t make up their mind) does not.By the way, has anyone at the Revdex.com
noticed that in Giertsen’s reply to my initial complaint, specifically
paragraph 5, Giertsen has written “. . . 
Walls that had been tipping were straightened, . . .”  There was only one “tipping” wall that I was
made aware of, that being the north wall. 
Again, did they do what they are claiming (straightened) and what they charged my
insurance company for (replace) or not?  The wall
is still “tipping”.  What is the truth
here?And regarding Giertsen’s paragraph 4, why
are the door jambs that Giertsen removed, tore down the original drywall, hung new
drywall and then re-hung the door jambs the only jambs that are shifting?  The door jambs they did not remove are not
shifting, just the ones they did remove and re-hang.  Would someone please explain this to me?I
would appreciate Giertsen advising what they deem to be “falsehoods as to our
performance”.  Prior to Giertsen starting any work on my
home, I was reassured numerous times by several Giertsen employees that they [Giertsen]
would rebuild everything the way it was prior to the fire, and that I was “in
good hands”.  On numerous occasions over
the next months, I met with Giertsen employees and their sub-contractors to go
over reconstruction details.  We have had
very lengthy discussions as to what was to be done and notes were taken by both
Giertsen employees and their sub-contractors in my presence.  These discussions and resulting notes were
not accurately adhered to.  Numerous
items had to be re-done because Giertsen employees and/or their sub-contractors
did not do the work the way it had been originally discussed.  The laundry chute in the pantry is one
example.  The height of the chute opening
and the shelves was discussed.  When the
carpenter re-constructed the pantry, he raised the height of the chute from the
height of approximately 15” to three (3) feet, with shelving behind the height
of the chute.  His reasoning being that I
was an “older” person and I would not have to bend over to put clothing down
the chute.  It had to be re-done to lower
the chute opening to the original height discussed.  Again, when asked if my insurance company was
charged for this “re-do”, I was not given a reply.  Also, without my knowledge and without any
prior discussion whatsoever, the carpenter also installed a slightly raised floor
and placed a molding at the end of this floor piece in front of the chute but
behind the pantry door, making it impossible to sweep in that area.  It was not designed this way prior to the
fire, and I have no idea what the function of this structure is supposed to be
(cover up for the door being cut too short??), but it has ruined the flow of
the natural hard wood flooring that was installed and has created a very hard
to clean area.  Also, that particular
pantry not only had rough cedar interior walls, it had a bi-fold louvered door
on it prior to the fire.  It was replaced
with drywall and a hinged hollow core wood door without a discussion with me as
to what I would like.As I mentioned in the initial complaint,
the back exterior door was one example. 
For approximately half an hour I discussed with the lead carpenter why
the door needed to be hung a certain way so that my disabled son could gain
access.  When I next came to my home, the
door had been hung the opposite way of the way discussed.  When I called him and questioned why the door
was not hung the way we discussed, I was told it looked better, even though my disabled
son would not have been able to get in or out of the door.  Giertsen employees ended up removing the door
and re-hanging it.  When I asked Giertsen
if my insurance company was charged for this “re-do”, I never received an
answer. As another example:  Prior to the actual rebuild of my attached
garage, I met with the lead carpenter and discussed number of windows, window
height, number, location and type of storage closets, number of lights and
placement, pull down access ladder, re-mounting of the steel beam for the
pulley.  When doing the rebuild of my
attached garage, Giertsen had taken it upon itself to raise the windows in my garage
to the point I would have had to climb a ladder to look out of them.  This change was done without a further discussion
with me and without my approval.  When I
asked why the windows were raised, I was told that the carpenter doing the work
“thought it would look better if the windows in the garage were the same height
as the bedroom windows on the opposite end of the house”.  My house is on a slightly higher plain than
the garage, and it did not look better. 
In fact, even my neighbors said it looked ridiculous.  This was another re-do by Giertsen
employees.  Again, when I had inquired of
Giertsen employees if my insurance company was charged for the re-framing and lowering
of the garage windows back to their original height, I did not receive a reply.Yet another example is the previously
mentioned patio doors.  As previously
stated, 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.  As
a side note to this, I would like it noted that until the mini ramps were
installed, there was NO support under the outside sill part.  The sill was just hanging there and would
bend when an adult would step on it.  Not
efficient or proper construction/installation.Also, as to the patio doors, Giertsen
can confirm that they have been out repeatedly to re-set or re-align the patio
doors during various times of the year, including in January of 2014 during the
cold snap of -35° when the center hinge shifted and I could not close
the door.  This continues to be a recurring
problem.  In March of this year (2015) I
contacted Anderson corporate headquarters regarding this on-going problem.  Corporate suggested I contact Weather Tech, a
factory distributor of Anderson products, and have them come out and look at
the doors.  On March 19, 2015 two
installers from Weather Tech came to my home and inspected both back patio
doors.  The installers did advise me that
“occasionally”, (usually only once or maybe twice a year), the doors would need
to be readjusted with the tool included with every door sold due to the
hinge movement caused by repeated opening and closing of the door.  However, they also determined that the reason
I will have to readjust my doors most likely every month is due to the fact
that the doors were not straight (plumb) installations, thus causing frequent
shifting of the hinges every time the doors are opened and closed.  They proceeded to show me how and where to
adjust the doors.  They asked me where
the adjustment tool was, and I replied that I was not given any tool by the
contractor.  They advised me to call the
contractor and request return of the tool so I can do the adjustments.  Have I called Giertsen yet?  No. 
Why not?  Look at their past
actions.  Would you call?  My insurance company paid for the doors,
which in essence means they paid for the adjustment tool that was included with
the door, yet Giertsen employees took the tool(s) with them.  Theft? 
One would think that since Giertsen has been out numerous times to readjust
these doors, they would have left at least one of the tools for me to use, yet
they have not.Maybe this would be a good time to bring
up the skylight issue.  My skylight in
the office area DID NOT LEAK prior to the fire. 
Giertsen employees removed the skylight, replaced roof rafters and roof
decking and replaced my old skylight.  In
January of 2013, I noticed that the skylight leaked.  Repeatedly. 
We fought for months over not only this issue, but other damages as
well.  In late October of 2013 Giertsen
finally agreed that it was their responsibility to replace the skylight, along
with numerous other repairs for damage directly caused by their employees.How about the three (3) times Giertsen has been out to re-hang the siding because it kept "popping" off?  The last time taking down more than half way then re-hanging it?  Quality workmanship? Or how about the plants that were acknowledged by the lead carpenter of Giertsen as being accidently destroyed by Giertsen employees during the rebuild (burning bush in the front and rhodenderon in the back at the end of the deck) and that I was told would be replaced?  Asked lead carpenter several times, was told they would be replaced, and am still waiting.I
would appreciate Giertsen describing exactly what they deem to be “pointed
accusations of dishonesty” and “strongly infers insurance fraud was committed
by Giertsen”. Dishonesty and fraud.  Well, let’s further discuss some business practices
of Giertsen, besides the ones discussed above.Giertsen has looked me in the face and
told me that they had no idea as to the limits of my insurance coverage, that
they are not “privy” to that information. 
If Giertsen is speaking the truth, then how does Giertsen know how to
budget a project?  Is the sky the limit
in their mind?Since this has happened, I have talked
to a few contractors regarding rebuild practices, such as with my house fire.  I have been told by these contractors that
insurance companies inform contractors up front as to the type/scope of
coverage and limits of coverage prior to the start of any work.  It is called full disclosure.  I was also informed that a contractor is obligated
by law to advise the property owner in
writing when they are getting close to the limit, and that the contractor
is to get written authorization
acknowledging the over-limit notice and written authorization to proceed beyond
the limit(s).  Giertsen DID NOT
inform me that I was close to my limit, nor did they inform me that I was going
over my limit, nor did they get any type of written acknowledgement and authorization
from me to proceed beyond my limit amount. 
I first learned that I was “beyond” my insurance coverage limit in April
of 2014 when my insurance adjuster called with the “good news/bad news”
scenario, e.g. “Good news – your home is finished and I have your keys; Bad
news, you owe Giertsen $78,000+ out of your pocket.”I spoke to another [redacted] agent with
a “hypothetical question” regarding my type of claim.  This agent did not initially know I was a
current [redacted] customer.  I was told
by this agent that it is [redacted]’s practice to inform the chosen contractor
as to the type of coverage as well as the limits of coverage prior to any work
being started so that there is a clear knowledge and understanding as to
limitations.  Again, full disclosure.Yet Giertsen continues to insist to me
that they had no knowledge as to the limits of my policy, and that I owe them
money.  Initially the amount Giertsen claimed
I owed them was over $78,000.  When I
demanded copies of every invoice, credit slip, timesheet, sub-contractor
invoices, etc. for my review, Giertsen informed me that they would perform the
review.  Every month I sent at least one,
if not several e-mails to both Giertsen and my insurance adjuster for a status
update as to Giertsen’s review.  Five
(5) months later, Giertsen advised they had completed their “review”.  At a meeting held at my insurance adjuster’s
office, I was handed a stack of invoices from Giertsen.It should be noted here that until this
meeting in September of 2013, the last estimate I approved was in the amount of
$115,000 (presented to me by Craig, clipped to a board and signed at my house
after he told me about the leaning north wall) and the last estimated invoice I
had received from Giertsen was in the amount of $140,534.32.  This is the estimate I assumed that Giertsen
was working from.  I had not received
copies of the other ten (10) invoices until
handed to me at this meeting.During this meeting, Giertsen claimed
that upon their review of all these invoices, they “discovered” over $50,000.00
of “accounting errors” and had adjusted the invoices accordingly, coming up with a “total due Giertsen
in the amount of $28,465.30”.  A far cry
from the initial +$78,000 they claimed I owed them.Just imagine, had I not insisted upon
a review of all invoices, credit slips, timesheets, etc. Giertsen could
have theoretically obtained $50,000 worth of fraudulent charges.I have repeatedly asked both Giertsen
and my insurance company whose responsibility it was to notify me that this
rebuild was getting close to and/or going over my limit.  To this day, no one has answered that
question.Eric S[redacted], senior level management of
Giertsen Company, a friend of mine and myself met at a public location to
discuss several outstanding issues, one of the issues being that the structure
and contents are to be treated as two separate matters.  During that meeting, Mr. S[redacted] verbally
agreed to the separation of these two items. 
In a summary e-mail sent to me on October 19, 2013 by Mr. S[redacted],
Giertsen had indicated that if I had the outstanding structural amount of
$17,980.74 released to them, “The structural policy overage consisting of
labor, unpaid B2B invoices and materials would be nullified for an amount of
$28,465.30 with lien waivers being given to yourself.”Once the structural repairs open at that
time were completed, I contacted [redacted] regarding release of the structural
funds balance in the amount of $17,980.74. 
On December 24, 2013 at approximately 9:12 a.m., this check was endorsed
by me and handed to Eric S[redacted] in person. 
I asked Mr. S[redacted] for the lien release.  Mr. S[redacted] advised me that with the hectic
time of the holiday season, he forgot to bring the release, but would mail it
to me next week.  When I did not receive
the lien release in the mail, I called Mr. S[redacted], who conveniently “could not recall that conversation”.  I had yet again blindly trusted
Giertsen.  And yet again, another look-me-right-in-the-face-and-lie-to-me
from a Giertsen employee.  Had I known he
was going to pull this, I would not have handed over the check to Mr. S[redacted]
at that time; I would have held onto it until he handed me the lien release.  Although, in hind sight I
guess one could reasonably say I should have known better after all the other things
that had gone on.On January 7, 2015, despite their written assurance they would provide me a
lien release if I had my insurance company release the $17,980.74 structural
payment (which I had done), Giertsen Company proceeded to file a Prime
Contractor Claim for Lien on my property. 
Yet again, an example of Giertsen Company saying one thing and doing the
complete opposite.Within the last 60 days I, and other
people visiting my home, have noticed that the floor that Giertsen had built in
the family room is starting to shift and buckle.  Really? 
After two years?  Although, the
floor is attached to the north wall that is shifting, so I guess
one could construe that the floor is also shifting and that would cause the
buckling of the floor.  But, again, I am
not a carpenter, so this is only a common sense deduction on my part.  Just like the wood wall in the family room
(also built by Giertsen employees) starting to come loose at the top.  Maybe could be from the wall shifting?  Visitors have informed me that they have noticed
the back (north) wall appears to have shifting 2x4’s pushing out the siding, as
well as the family room window appears to be coming out in the upper right hand corner.  These were friends of my son; neither my son
nor I ever mentioned anything to these visitors prior to their comments on what
they saw.  I find it amazing that someone
without prior knowledge can notice things like this.I am not the only client of Giertsen
that Giertsen has pulled these types of actions on.  I have been in contact with another client of
theirs who is also missing items removed and never returned.  In fact, the
very first box that I opened during my unpack was one of her boxes!!  One of the major differences between my fire
pack out and hers is that I had to work and was not able to be there at most of
the pack out.  This client of Giertsen
did not work and actually assisted in the pack out of her items.  She has advised me that items she
specifically indicated to Giertsen as items that were to be discarded were
actually retained, “cleaned” and returned to her, while several items that
she marked as to be cleaned and returned never were.  She also informed me that Giertsen had called
her and asked her specific permission to use one of her Japanese antique sets
as a display during the Giertsen open house. 
She granted permission and even attended the open house, seeing her
antique items on display.  The particular
set displayed by Giertsen was never returned to her, despite her repeated
phone calls to Giertsen.  It too, has
been “misplaced” by Giertsen employees. 
There is so much more to this, but I have
taken up quite a bit of your time already. 
I truly hope you will let the public know they need to be cautious and
on top of any dealings with Giertsen.
Regards,
[redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc.

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc. Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Add contact information for Giertsen Company of Wisconsin, Inc.

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated