Glenn Carpenter Painting

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 The decision is arbitrary only by existence of a lot of rustRust can be reason for leakage but cannot be an evidence for a long period of leakageThe bad experience with Universal Home Protection led me to request prorated refund and cancellationPlease note the case on Revdex.com filed against Universal Home Protection on 11/25/(http://www.Revdex.com.org/wisconsin/business-reviews/home-warranty-plans/...⇄ under 'The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction(complaint)')This case is similar in questioning their terms, and that customer did get prorated refund from Universal Home ProtectionIf laws changed after that time, the company should have updated their terms accordinglyIf no laws change, I should get prorated refund Regards, [redacted] ***

November 4, Our firm has reviewed the complaint you forwarded to us dated November 2, 2016, filed by the complainant concerning the boilers at his residence and UHP’s interpretation of the home warranty contract Our records show that on November 1, 2016, the complainant submitted a request for service with our firm stating that a radiator was leaking water into the dining room Our firm responded by referring the complainant’s request to one of our certified HVAC contractors Upon the contractor’s arrival, he found the water to the radiator had been shut off and he proceeded with the required repair, which was covered by the home warranty He then proceeded to inspect the two boilers located at the property and subsequently submitted a proposal to UHP indicating in part, “Both boilers are being fed by one reducing valve Each boiler is required to have its own backflow preventer and reducing valve The boilers do not have isolation valves.” After speaking with the contractor, he confirmed that the boilers were improperly installed with both being fed by one reducing valve and neither boiler having isolation valves To correct the improper installation and bring the systems to code, additional work was required including completely draining and refilling the systems due to the non-existent isolation valves This procedure required additional fees in labor to complete the process UHP contacted the complainant and explained that UHP could not provide coverage for the additional fees caused by the improper installation and missing valves UHP noted a clause in the contract stating, in part, Not Covered--“cost to drain boiler if no shut off valves are present;” valves being plural The complainant contends that this statement is ambiguous and does not pertain to this situation because the boilers have one of the two required valves UHP’s decision in this matter remains unchanged For the purposes of further clarification, the following provisions of UHP’s contract must also be applied in this case Section ACoverage states in part “UHP agrees to arrange for a qualified service contractor to repair or replace a covered component or appliance in the event of mechanical failure which occurred during the term of the warranty contract as a result of wear and tear.” The costs to drain the boiler and install parts that are not currently installed is not a mechanical malfunction due to wear and tear Further, the contract states in part, “Repairs or replacements required as a result of improper installation, are not covered by this contract.” Per the contractor, the boilers require draining, refilling, and installation of additional parts because they were improperly installed and must be code compliant Lastly, the contract states, “Upgrading or improvement of systems, components, and items due to the lack of capacity, failure to meet current building code(s) or zoning requirements is the responsibility of the owner and is not covered by this contract.” The complainant did not acknowledge that UHP did adhere to the terms of the contract and is providing coverage for those mechanical malfunctions that occurred due to wear and tear during the term of the warranty contract UHP is clearly under no contractual obligation to rectify the improper installation, add new parts that do not currently exist, or bring the boiler systems up to code Further, UHP has no contractual obligation to provide coverage for any work done to the boilers due to improper installation However, in a good faith effort, UHP did agree to cover those items that malfunctioned during the contract termUHP is a home warranty company, not an insurance company, and as such, is responsible for the remedy of mechanical failure due to wear and tear The warranty is not responsible to provide remedy by installing parts that are not currently installed or for making repairs to ensure the equipment is properly installed and code compliant UHP’s contract is regulated by the Office Of The Commissioner Of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin and they are the governing body to determine correct interpretation of the provisions of the contract The assertion that because the complainant did not draft the contract, and therefore the ambiguity should be construed in the complainant’s favor is unfounded UHP’s contract is clear regarding coverage for improperly installed equipment and code issues The complainant was advised of the proper procedure for filing a complaint This provision is clearly spelled out in the contract by the regulating agency In the event the complainant elects to comply with that contractual provision, UHP will be happy to respond in kindRespectfully submitted: Universal Home Protection LLC [redacted] Director of Operations

September 13, 2017Revdex.com of WisconsinWGreenfield Avenue, Ste125Milwaukee, WI 53214RE: Complaint ID [redacted] For: [redacted] Trade Practice ConsultantDear Ms [redacted] Our firm has reviewed the complaint you forwarded to us dated September 11, 2017, filed by the complainant regarding the pool heater at his residence and Universal Home Protection’s interpretation of the home warranty contract Our records show that on July 5th, 2017, the complainant submitted a request for service with our firm stating that the pool heater would not turn on in his first attempt to use it during the term of the home warranty coverage Our firm responded by referring the complainant’s request to one of our certified pool contractors Upon the contractor’s arrival, the technician found the ignitor switch and board in the pool heater needed to be replaced He also informed UHP that both of these parts could not have mechanically malfunctioned by the action of the complainant trying to run the pool heater for the first time In turn, Universal Home Protection informed the complainant that, per the contractor’s diagnosis, the pool heater could not have malfunctioned during the term of the home warranty contract, and therefore, UHP would not be able to assist with the cost to repair or replace the pool heater UHP’s Warranty Terms And Conditions states in part, “This warranty covers only those items that are: correctly installed and operating properly on the effective date of this contract.” Further, the contract states in part, “any conditions that existed prior to Agreement effective date, are not covered.” Because the pool heater would not turn on during the complainant’s first attempt to run it, the heater could not have been operating properly on the effective date of the contract and then mechanically malfunction due to wear and tear, as is required to qualify for coverage In an attempt to remedy the situation with the complainant, UHP did offer to refund the $cost of the swimming pool rider UHP’s offer was met with the complainant raising his voice and indicating he will smear UHP via social media A second call to the complainant with another offer to refund the $cost of the pool rider was followed by a resounding “No” and the complainant hanging up on UHP’s representative The complainant’s assertion that “They cover nothing” is completely false UHP provides coverage for thousands of claims per year that fully meet the criteria of the home warranty contract Because the issues the complainant has had with his property since the effective date of the home warranty contract do not meet the criteria specified by the warranty contract, he claims “They cover nothing.” If the complainant would like to pursue this matter further, the provision to do so is clearly spelled out in the Warranty Terms And Conditions by submitting a complaint to the Office Of The Commissioner Of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin In the event the complainant elects to comply with that contractual provision, UHP will be happy to respond in kind.Respectfully submitted:Universal Home Protection LLC [redacted] Director of OperationsTell us why here

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.First, Ms [redacted] 's startment of how ambiguity in the contract should be interpreted is alarmingIt reflects either an egregious failure to understand the products UHP sells to its customers and the environment in which it does business, or it is an unconscionable attempt to avoid the responsibilities assented to in the sale of such productsContracts of adhesion, such as the one in question here, are strictly adjudicated contra proferentemThis is to that ambiguity in the contract is construed to the in the benefit of the party who did not draft the languageThis doctrine is routinely applied by the state and federal court system, as well as by all regulatory authoritiesIt has a particularly rich history of application in Wisconsin(See the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Hirschhorn vAuto-Insurance Owners Company for an example)When, on the phone, Ms [redacted] was asked if we could agree that the language in question "cost to the drain the boiler if no shut off valves are present" was ambiguous, she replied with "yes and no." This is the very definition of ambiguitySecond, her assertion that "cost to the drain the boiler system if no shut-off valves are present" clearly implies more than one valve needs to be present is stretching the limits of the English languageWe would not accept that interpretation in any other scenarioImagine a counter example"Your bed is safe to sleep in, if no bed bugs are present." We would not interpret that to mean that one bed bug is acceptable, whereas two are notA plain language reading of the contract belies Ms [redacted] 's assertionMoreover, even if we were to accept Ms [redacted] 's interpretation as plausible, we find ourself with an ambiguous phrase which is resolved contra proferentemThis is to say that my assertion that this provision of the contract is irrelevant as a shut off valve is present is the appropriate interpretation of the contract languageThird, Part A of the contract indicates that the warranty covers only those items that are "correctly installed." As Ms [redacted] points out, UHP is covering the replacement of the reducer valve, which is the failed and covered componentPer the contract, only the covered item must be installed correctly for the warranty to applyNo one has disputed that the this valve was installed correctlyAccordingly, UHP is responsible for the cost to replace the valve and install a new oneFourth, if we accept that all parts somehow connected to the failed component must be installed "correctly," I argue the phrase is ambiguousIf UHP is intending to say "installed in a manner compliant with current code" or "installed per the manufacturer's recommendations," then the contract should specify thatInstead, I interpret "correctly installed" to mean "installed such that the installation is not the cause of the failure of the part." Fifth, Ms [redacted] misrepresents the solution I seekI am not asking, nor have I ever asked, for UHP to cover the cost to installation of new parts to the system or the cost to bring my system in compliance with codeI ask only that they cover the cost, less my deductible, to replace the failed component on my systemIf the contractor were to replace the component and do no other work, that cost is the repsonsibility of UHPI would happy to pay any additional cost to install new components on my systemAccordingly, I do not accept the resonse made by the businessRegards, [redacted] ***

August 2, 2016Revdex.com of WisconsinWGreenfield Avenue, Ste125Milwaukee, WI 53214RE: Complaint ID *** For: *** *** Trade Practice Consultant Dear Ms***Our firm
has reviewed the complaint filed by the complainant and has responded in the form of letter explaining Universal Home Protection’s (hereinafter UHP, We, or Our) reason for the denial of the water heater. The denial was based on the plumber’s diagnosis that the bottom of the heater was rusted out and there were clear indications that the heater had been leaking for a long period of time, prior to the effective date of UHP’s coverage. Because UHP does not provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage of the water heater was denied.Universal Home Protection is unable to process the complainant’s request for cancellation of the home warranty contract and the processing of a pro-rated refund. UHP’s Warranty Terms And Conditions state, “(As governed by state laws), In Wisconsin: The purchaser of the warranty plan may (within calendar days of the delivery of the warranty contract) reject and return the warranty contract for a full refund; less actual costs or charges needed to issue and service the warranty contract.” The contract does not fail to include a pro-rated refund term after the first days of the policy because in the state of Wisconsin, cancellation and pro-rated refunds are not allowed after the first days. These terms are per Wisconsin state statutes regarding home warranty contracts and UHP is required to comply with those statues. Therefore, cancellation and a pro-rated refund at this point is not permitted. Should the complainant desire to proceed with further action regarding UHP’s denial, we would ask that he refer to UHP’s Warranty Terms And Conditions for direction in filing a formal complaint with the agency who enforces our warranty contract.Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.Respectfully Submitted,UNIVERSAL HOME PROTECTION*** ***Director of Operations

December 17, 2015Revdex.com of WisconsinWGreenfield
Avenue, Ste125Milwaukee, WI 53214RE: Complaint ID ***For: *** *** Trade Practice ConsultantDear Ms***:Our firm has
reviewed
the complaint you forwarded to us dated December 15, 2015, filed by the
complainant concerning the buimicrowave at his residence. Our records show that on December 15, 2015, Universal
Home Protection (hereinafter UHP) received a request for service from the
complainant indicating the glass on the door of his microwave was broken. At that time, UHP’s customer service
representative informed the complainant that the home warranty does not cover broken
glass on appliance doors. The
complainant contended that the Warranty
Terms And Conditions states that buimicrowaves are covered. This contention is correct However, section ACoverage of UHP’s Warranty
Terms And Conditions states in part, “UHP agrees to arrange for a qualified
service contractor to repair or replace a COVERED component or appliance in the
event of malfunction or mechanical failure which occurred during the term of
the warranty contract as a result of wear and tear.” Further, section CComponents and Appliances Eligible for Basic Plan Coverage, sub-paragraph
entitled PRIMARY APPLIANCES,
sub-paragraph entitled Not Covered,
states in part, “doors or related parts”.
Had the complainant experienced a mechanical malfunction with the
buimicrowave (i.eif the microwave stopped running or stopped heating,
etc.), UHP would have gladly accepted the request for service and followed
through with the repair or replacement of the appliance if repairs were not
possible.The complainant’s desired
outcome indicates that he wants UHP to provide coverage for the repair of his
buimicrowave. What he does not
indicate in the complaint is that the actual problem with his microwave is
broken glass on the door. He also
states, “I am very disappointed with the company who has no problem with taking
my money for the coverage but will not stand behind their policy.” UHP is clearly complying with the terms of our
home warranty contract, which was purchased and paid for by the seller of his
home, not by the complainant. Should the complainant
desire to proceed with further action regarding UHP’s denial of his request for
service, we would ask that he refer to UHP’s Warranty Terms And Conditions for direction in filing a formal
complaint with the agency who enforces our warranty contract.Please feel free to
contact me if you have any questionsRespectfully Submitted,UNIVERSAL HOME
PROTECTION*** ***Director of Operations

[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.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me I further wish to express my appreciation to Universal Home Protection for working diligently to resolve the issue in a professional and timely manner
Regards,
Phillip Laper

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
*** ***

June 12, Revdex.com of Wisconsin WGreenfield Avenue, SteMilwaukee, WI RE: Complaint ID *** *** *** ***
Trade Practice Consultant Dear Ms
***: Our firm has reviewed the complaint you forwarded to us dated June 3, 2013, filed by the complainant regarding the air conditioner at his residence and Universal Home Protection’s interpretation of the home warranty contract. Our records show that on May 28th, 2018, UHP contacted ** *** Indoor Comfort Systems in response to the complainant’s request for service indicating his air conditioner was running but would not cool below degrees. ** *** attempted to contact the homeowner multiple times and the number they called went right to voicemail for a Debbie Shaw. They happened to have a truck in the vicinity on 5/so they stopped to see if he was home. Upon the contractor’s arrival, the technician found the air conditioning system two-thirds empty of refrigerant. He also noted that all of the fittings were rusted and corroded. They informed the complainant they could perform a leak check, evacuate the system, recover the refrigerant and recharge the unit for $842.35. During that visit, the complainant asked them to provide a quote for a new system. Following that visit, the contractor contacted UHP with the diagnosis and informed UHP they could not find an active leak but did find the system two-thirds empty of freon. UHP asked the technician if the air conditioner could have leaked two-thirds of its refrigerant in the ten days UHP had coverage on the property. The technician indicated that he did not find a leak or any evidence (residue) that the system recently leaked out a significant amount of its refrigerant. In turn, Universal Home Protection informed the complainant that, per the contractor’s diagnosis, the air conditioner could not have developed a leak large enough to empty two-thirds of the refrigerant during the term of the home warranty contract, and therefore, UHP would not be able to assist with the cost to repair or replace the air conditioner. In his complaint, the complainant’s assertion that the air conditioner worked “perfectly fine” in the days prior to May 28th is unfounded as the service contractor informed UHP that it is impossible for the air conditioner to have cooled as he claims when they found it two-thirds empty of freon. The technician also informed UHP that he did not tell the complainant that UHP would provide coverage for items that were actually maintenance but that he would report them to UHP as repairs, nor did he tell the complainant that UHP would “completely cover it.” Service contractors do not have the authority to approve coverage per UHP’s contract, nor is it their responsibility to enforce the terms of the contract. The complainant also states that he spoke with several HVAC companies, one of which told him the cheapest thing to do would be to put refrigerant back into it for “a mere $80” and he further states that he assumes that is what the previous homeowner did. If the previous homeowner added refrigerant when they owned the home, that indicates the air conditioner was leaking when the previous homeowner owned the home, well before UHP’s coverage started. Therefore, the leak existed prior to UHP’s coverage and is pre-existing. Lastly, the complainant states “Plus, where does it say UHP does not cover pre-existing issues with their terms and conditions?” UHP’s Warranty Terms And Conditions state in multiple locations that pre-existing issues are not covered. Specifically, the one pertaining to this instance can be found in Section C., sub-paragraph entitled AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM, sub-paragraph entitled Not Covered, which states in part, “any conditions that existed prior to Agreement effective date” If the complainant would like to pursue this matter further, the provision to do so is clearly spelled out in the Warranty Terms And Conditions by submitting a complaint to the Office Of The Commissioner Of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin. In the event the complainant elects to comply with that contractual provision, UHP will be happy to respond in kind Respectfully submitted: Universal Home Protection LLC Holly Donarski Director of Operations

Thank you for forwarding the response from the complainant regarding the denial of coverage for the water heater and the subsequent request for cancellation and pro-rated refund of the home warranty contract Universal Home Protection's Warranty Terms And Conditions state, "In Wisconsin: The purchaser of the warranty plan may (within calendar days of the delivery of the warranty contract) reject and return the warranty contract for a full refund; less actual costs or charges needed to issue and service the warranty contract." The current contract (Form #10/14) is regulated and approved by the Office Of The Commissioner Of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin, and as such, we are required to adhere to these termsBecause we are past the day time frame allowed by the State regulations for cancellation and refund of the warranty contract we are unable to comply the complainant's request.Section OState Requirements of the Warranty Terms And Conditions provides the complainant the contractual right to submit their concern to that agency for resolution and we would ask the complainant to adhere to those terms of the contract.At this time, UHP considers this matter a closed issueOur firm, with regard to the response you have requested, has complied with your request and we appreciate your efforts in this matter.Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions

This complaint is currently in negotiations between the complainant and UHP’s President No further response will be provided regarding this matter via the Revdex.com

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.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
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.
The decision is arbitrary only by existence of a lot of rust. Rust can be reason for leakage but cannot be an evidence for a long period of leakage. The bad experience with Universal Home Protection led me to request prorated refund and cancellation. Please note the case on Revdex.com filed against Universal Home Protection on 11/25/2013 (http://www.Revdex.com.org/wisconsin/business-reviews/home-warranty-plans/univer...⇄ under 'The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction. (1 complaint)'). This case is similar in questioning their terms, and that customer did get prorated refund from Universal Home Protection. If laws changed after that time, the company should have updated their terms accordingly. If no laws change, I should get prorated refund.
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.First, Ms. [redacted]'s startment of how ambiguity in the contract should be interpreted is alarming. It reflects either an egregious failure to understand the products UHP sells to its customers and the environment in which it does business, or it is an unconscionable attempt to avoid the responsibilities assented to in the sale of such products. Contracts of adhesion, such as the one in question here, are strictly adjudicated contra proferentem. This is to that ambiguity in the contract is construed to the in the benefit of the party who did not draft the language. This doctrine is routinely applied by the state and federal court system, as well as by all regulatory authorities. It has a particularly rich history of application in Wisconsin. (See the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Hirschhorn v. Auto-Insurance Owners Company for an example). When, on the phone, Ms. [redacted] was asked if we could agree that the language in question "cost to the drain the boiler if no shut off valves are present" was ambiguous, she replied with "yes and no." This is the very definition of ambiguity. Second, her assertion that "cost to the drain the boiler system if no shut-off valves are present" clearly implies more than one valve needs to be present is stretching the limits of the English language. We would not accept that interpretation in any other scenario. Imagine a counter example. "Your bed is safe to sleep in, if no bed bugs are present." We would not interpret that to mean that one bed bug is acceptable, whereas two are not. A plain language reading of the contract belies Ms. [redacted]'s assertion. Moreover, even if we were to accept Ms. [redacted]'s interpretation as plausible, we find ourself with an ambiguous phrase which is resolved contra proferentem. This is to say that my assertion that this provision of the contract is irrelevant as a shut off valve is present is the appropriate interpretation of the contract language. Third, Part A of the contract indicates that the warranty covers only those items that are "correctly installed." As Ms. [redacted] points out, UHP is covering the replacement of the reducer valve, which is the failed and covered component. Per the contract, only the covered item must be installed correctly for the warranty to apply. No one has disputed that the this valve was installed correctly. Accordingly, UHP is responsible for the cost to replace the valve and install a new one. Fourth, if we accept that all parts somehow connected to the failed component must be installed "correctly," I argue the phrase is ambiguous. If UHP is intending to say "installed in a manner compliant with current code" or "installed per the manufacturer's recommendations," then the contract should specify that. Instead, I interpret "correctly installed" to mean "installed such that the installation is not the cause of the failure of the part." Fifth, Ms. [redacted] misrepresents the solution I seek. I am not asking, nor have I ever asked, for UHP to cover the cost to installation of new parts to the system or the cost to bring my system in compliance with code. I ask only that they cover the cost, less my deductible, to replace the failed component on my system. If the contractor were to replace the component and do no other work, that cost is the repsonsibility of UHP. I would happy to pay any additional cost to install new components on my system. Accordingly, I do not accept the resonse made by the business. Regards,
[redacted]

November 4, 2016 Our firm has reviewed the complaint you forwarded to us dated November 2, 2016, filed by the complainant concerning the boilers at his residence and UHP’s interpretation of the home warranty contract.  Our records show that on November 1, 2016, the complainant submitted a...

request for service with our firm stating that a radiator was leaking water into the dining room.  Our firm responded by referring the complainant’s request to one of our certified HVAC contractors.  Upon the contractor’s arrival, he found the water to the radiator had been shut off and he proceeded with the required repair, which was covered by the home warranty.  He then proceeded to inspect the two boilers located at the property and subsequently submitted a proposal to UHP indicating in part, “Both boilers are being fed by one reducing valve.  Each boiler is required to have its own backflow preventer and reducing valve.  The boilers do not have isolation valves.”  After speaking with the contractor, he confirmed that the boilers were improperly installed with both being fed by one reducing valve and neither boiler having isolation valves.  To correct the improper installation and bring the systems to code, additional work was required including completely draining and refilling the systems due to the non-existent isolation valves.  This procedure required additional fees in labor to complete the process.  UHP contacted the complainant and explained that UHP could not provide coverage for the additional fees caused by the improper installation and missing valves.  UHP noted a clause in the contract stating, in part, Not Covered--“cost to drain boiler if no shut off valves are present;” valves being plural.  The complainant contends that this statement is ambiguous and does not pertain to this situation because the boilers have one of the two required valves.  UHP’s decision in this matter remains unchanged.  For the purposes of further clarification, the following provisions of UHP’s contract must also be applied in this case.  Section A. Coverage states in part “UHP agrees to arrange for a qualified service contractor to repair or replace a covered component or appliance in the event of mechanical failure which occurred during the term of the warranty contract as a result of normal wear and tear.”  The costs to drain the boiler and install parts that are not currently installed is not a mechanical malfunction due to normal wear and tear.  Further, the contract states in part, “Repairs or replacements required as a result of improper installation, are not covered by this contract.”  Per the contractor, the boilers require draining, refilling, and installation of additional parts because they were improperly installed and must be code compliant.  Lastly, the contract states, “Upgrading or improvement of systems, components, and items due to the lack of capacity, failure to meet current building code(s) or zoning requirements is the responsibility of the owner and is not covered by this contract.”  The complainant did not acknowledge that UHP did adhere to the terms of the contract and is providing coverage for those mechanical malfunctions that occurred due to normal wear and tear during the term of the warranty contract.  UHP is clearly under no contractual obligation to rectify the improper installation, add new parts that do not currently exist, or bring the boiler systems up to code.  Further, UHP has no contractual obligation to provide coverage for any work done to the boilers due to improper installation.  However, in a good faith effort, UHP did agree to cover those items that malfunctioned during the contract term. UHP is a home warranty company, not an insurance company, and as such, is responsible for the remedy of mechanical failure due to normal wear and tear.  The warranty is not responsible to provide remedy by installing parts that are not currently installed or for making repairs to ensure the equipment is properly installed and code compliant.  UHP’s contract is regulated by the Office Of The Commissioner Of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin and they are the governing body to determine correct interpretation of the provisions of the contract.  The assertion that because the complainant did not draft the contract, and therefore the ambiguity should be construed in the complainant’s favor is unfounded.  UHP’s contract is clear regarding coverage for improperly installed equipment and code issues.   The complainant was advised of the proper procedure for filing a complaint.  This provision is clearly spelled out in the contract by the regulating agency.  In the event the complainant elects to comply with that contractual provision, UHP will be happy to respond in kind. Respectfully submitted: Universal Home Protection LLC [redacted] Director of Operations

September 13, 2017Revdex.com of Wisconsin10101 W. Greenfield Avenue, Ste. 125Milwaukee, WI  53214RE:  Complaint ID [redacted]For:      [redacted]            Trade Practice ConsultantDear Ms. [redacted]Our firm has...

reviewed the complaint you forwarded to us dated September 11, 2017, filed by the complainant regarding the pool heater at his residence and Universal Home Protection’s interpretation of the home warranty contract.  Our records show that on July 5th, 2017, the complainant submitted a request for service with our firm stating that the pool heater would not turn on in his first attempt to use it during the term of the home warranty coverage.  Our firm responded by referring the complainant’s request to one of our certified pool contractors.  Upon the contractor’s arrival, the technician found the ignitor switch and board in the pool heater needed to be replaced.  He also informed UHP that both of these parts could not have mechanically malfunctioned by the action of the complainant trying to run the pool heater for the first time.  In turn, Universal Home Protection informed the complainant that, per the contractor’s diagnosis, the pool heater could not have malfunctioned during the term of the home warranty contract, and therefore, UHP would not be able to assist with the cost to repair or replace the pool heater.   UHP’s Warranty Terms And Conditions states in part, “This warranty covers only those items that are:  correctly installed and operating properly on the effective date of this contract.”  Further, the contract states in part, “any conditions that existed prior to Agreement effective date, are not covered.”  Because the pool heater would not turn on during the complainant’s first attempt to run it, the heater could not have been operating properly on the effective date of the contract and then mechanically malfunction due to normal wear and tear, as is required to qualify for coverage.  In an attempt to remedy the situation with the complainant, UHP did offer to refund the $200.00 cost of the swimming pool rider.  UHP’s offer was met with the complainant raising his voice and indicating he will smear UHP via social media.  A second call to the complainant with another offer to refund the $200.00 cost of the pool rider was followed by a resounding “No” and the complainant hanging up on UHP’s representative.     The complainant’s assertion that “They cover nothing” is completely false.  UHP provides coverage for thousands of claims per year that fully meet the criteria of the home warranty contract.  Because the issues the complainant has had with his property since the effective date of the home warranty contract do not meet the criteria specified by the warranty contract, he claims “They cover nothing.” If the complainant would like to pursue this matter further, the provision to do so is clearly spelled out in the Warranty Terms And Conditions by submitting a complaint to the Office Of The Commissioner Of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin.  In the event the complainant elects to comply with that contractual provision, UHP will be happy to respond in kind.Respectfully submitted:Universal Home Protection LLC[redacted]
Director of OperationsTell us why here...